Re: [PATCH 3/3] pretty=format: Avoid some expensive calculations when not needed

> René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:
> 
>> I haven't seen any comments on strbuf_expand.  Is it too far out?
>> Here it is again, adjusted for current master and with the changes
>> to strbuf.[ch] coming first:
> 
> Numbers talk ;-).

> In your previous round, you alluded that the strbuf_expand()
> interface could allow caching of the return value of fn(), but I
> do not think strbuf_expand() in this patch has anything to
> directly support that notion.
> 
> Nor I would expect to --- fn() could keep the really expensive
> information cached, keyed with context value, if it wanted to,
> but in practice for the purpose of format_commit_item() I do not
> offhand see anything cacheable and reusable, unless the user did
> stupid things (e.g. use more than one %h in the format string).