From: Kyle J. McKay <mackyle@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 22:34:01 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] strbuf: add strbuf_tolower function
Message-ID: <6057662E-B230-40FB-AB98-3E94BA70C7C1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140523200534.GD19088@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On May 23, 2014, at 13:05, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:52:08PM -0700, Kyle J. McKay wrote:
>
>>> Christian brought this up elsewhere, and I agree it's probably  
>>> better to
>>> work over the whole buffer, NULs included. I'm happy to re-roll  
>>> (or you
>>> can just pick up the version of the patch in this thread),
>>
>> The only reason I brought up the code difference in the first place  
>> was that
>> the comment was "This makes config's lowercase() function public"  
>> which made
>> me expect to see basically the equivalent of replacing a "static"  
>> with an
>> "extern", but actually the function being made public was a different
>> implementation than config's lowercase() function.
>
> Yeah, sorry if it sounded like I was complaining about your review
> elsewhere. I mostly found it amusing that I got two opposite-direction
> reviews.

I didn't seem like complaining to me.  I also was amused.  :)

> I agree that clarifying the situation in the commit message is best,  
> and
> I've done that in the version I just posted.

It looks great.  And I suspect you're correct that a modern compiler  
would optimize the index-based version to be as efficient as the  
pointer arithmetic version.

--Kyle