Re: [PATCH 19/21] grep: use writable strbuf from caller in grep_tree()

> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +             hit = grep_tree(opt, pathspec, &tree, &base, base.neglen);
>
> If you are going to let the users of strbuf API to refer directly to the
> field, I think "neglen" should be renamed to something more reasonable,
> say, "offset".
>
> I am still debating myself if this strbuf_offset is anugly hack merely to
> allow the implementation of "grep" not to carry one extra offset around
> throughout its callchain, or if it is generic enough that other/future
> callers would benefit from.  I am leaning toward to think this is an ugly
> hack, as a new caller that wants to carry _two_ offsets into a strbuf
> wouldn't get much benefit from this new API.  But I may be missreading
> your code.
>