Re: [PATCH 1/3] merge-ort: copy a few small helper functions from merge-recursive.c

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2020, 18:54 UTC
Message-ID: <5fda57fa7bfd1_74ba20875@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqim914pfs.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 36 quoted lines

> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 12/15/2020 12:53 PM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
> >> From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
> >> 
> >> In a subsequent commit, we will implement the traditional recursiveness
> >> that gave merge-recursive its name, namely merging non-unique
> >> merge-bases to come up with a single virtual merge base.  Copy a few
> >> helper functions from merge-recursive.c that we will use in the
> >> implementation.
> >
> > I'm sure these are copies, but...
> >
> >> +static struct commit_list *reverse_commit_list(struct commit_list *list)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct commit_list *next = NULL, *current, *backup;
> >> +	for (current = list; current; current = backup) {
> >> +		backup = current->next;
> >> +		current->next = next;
> >> +		next = current;
> >> +	}
> >
> > The naming of 'next' seems backwards to me, since it is really
> > the "previous" node. Using something like 'previous' makes it
> > clear that you are reversing when you say
> >
> > 	current->next = previous;
> 
> Hmph.  I took "next" commit_list as "list is the original one, and
> next is the reversed list, the next generation of what we received".
> 
> Calling it "previous" feels even more backwards when you view among
> three "struct commit_list *" pointers, one (the one that holds the
> eventual return value) is primarily used to denote the resulting
> list itself, and the other two are used to point individual elements
> on the original list.

Both feel awkward to me because to me previous/next are actually current in my mind, and we should return current, not previous/next. Plus there's no need for current, we can use list, as your example.

This is what I came up with:

  struct commit_list *current = NULL;
  while (list) {
          struct commit_list *tmp = list->next;
          list->next = current;
          current = list;
          list = tmp;
  }
  return current;

For completeness I checked how Linux does it, and surprisingly llist_reverse_order() is very close to what I came up with:

  struct commit_list *new_list = NULL;
  while (list) {
          struct commit_list *tmp = list;
          list = list->next;
          tmp->next = new_list;
          new_list = tmp;
  }
  return new_list;

(obviously translated)

Maybe it's just me, but I find my version easier to read.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras