From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:40:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] strbuf: add strbuf_add*_urlencode
Message-ID: <7v4nxmrwvq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20111130032028.GA24704@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26:20AM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
>
>> >>> +static int is_rfc3986_reserved(char ch)
>> >>> +{
>> >>> +	switch (ch) {
>> >>> +	case '!': case '*': case '\'': case '(': case ')': case ';':
>> >>> +	case ':': case '@': case '&': case '=': case '+': case '$':
>> >>> +	case ',': case '/': case '?': case '#': case '[': case ']':
>> >>> +		return 1;
>> >>> +	}
>> [...]
>> Sorry for my bikeshedding, but I'd paint it like this:
>> 
>> 	return !!strchr("!*'();:@&=+$,/?#[]", ch);
>
> I was always under the impression that computed jumps via "switch" would
> out-perform even an optimized strchr. Of course, I never tested. And I
> doubt performance is even relevant here, and I admit I don't care overly
> much. I find them both equally readable.
>
> I'm going to leave it as-is unless somebody else wants to say "I
> strongly prefer version X".

I find the switch/case one much easier to read and count, especially since
all the choices are essentially line-noise characters.

Just make sure you indent it correctly ;-)