From: Hariom verma <hariom18599@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:19:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ref-filter: 'contents:trailers' show error if `:` is missing
Message-ID: <CA+CkUQ9qz1=xvpdtTy49W5Uru3ONJ5R1zUCSdi7OXJCnZxTdzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsgcis2zc.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:38 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:07 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> >> > "Hariom Verma via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> +static int check_format_field(const char *arg, const char *field, const char **option)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> +            else if (*opt == ':') {
> >> >> +                    *option = ++opt;
> >> >> +                    return 1;
> >> >> +            }
> >>
> >> And the helper does not have such a breakage.  It looks good.
> >
> > One minor comment (not worth a re-roll): I personally found:
> >
> >     *option = ++opt;
> >
> > more confusing than:
> >
> >     *option = opt + 1;
> >
> > The `++opt` places a higher cognitive load on the reader. As a
> > reviewer, I had to go back and carefully reread the function to see if
> > the side-effect of `++opt` had some impact which I didn't notice on
> > the first readthrough. The simpler `opt + 1` does not have a
> > side-effect, thus is easier to reason about (and doesn't require me to
> > re-study the function when I encounter it).
>
> That makes the two of us ... thanks.

It seems like the score is 2-0.
I guess I'm going with winning side.

Will be improved in next version.

Thanks,
Hariom