Re: [PATCH v2] pretty: add %(decorate[:<options>]) format
- From
Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 11, 2023, 22:06 UTC
- Message-ID
- <61337dad-e1db-4f08-84f5-404bacc6c9bf@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqv8dlqpq7.fsf@gitster.g>
On 11/08/2023 21:38, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@gmail.com> writes: > >> There are a number of uses of designated initializers already, so >> hopefully compound literals aren't too much of an extra challenge. > > I do not see how one leads to the other here. I'd prefer not to see > use of a new construct we do not currently use mixed in a new code, > even if it is mentioned in the proposed log message.
Okay.
Would this style be acceptable to fulfil Glen's request to name the fields?
case 'D':
{
const struct decoration_options opts = {
.prefix = "",
.suffix = ""
};format_decorations(sb, commit, c->auto_color, &opts); } return 1;
Andy