Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] cache-tree: simplify verify_cache() prototype

>
> On 1/23/2021 3:24 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
> > <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> -       for (i = 0; i < entries - 1; i++) {
> >> +       for (i = 0; i + 1 < istate->cache_nr; i++) {
> >>                 /* path/file always comes after path because of the way
> >>                  * the cache is sorted.  Also path can appear only once,
> >>                  * which means conflicting one would immediately follow.
> >>                  */
> >> -               const struct cache_entry *this_ce = cache[i];
> >> -               const struct cache_entry *next_ce = cache[i + 1];
> >> +               const struct cache_entry *this_ce = istate->cache[i];
> >> +               const struct cache_entry *next_ce = istate->cache[i + 1];
> >>                 const char *this_name = this_ce->name;
> >>                 const char *next_name = next_ce->name;
> >>                 int this_len = ce_namelen(this_ce);
> > Makes sense.  Thanks for explaining the i + 1 < istate->cache_nr bit
> > in the commit message; made it easier to read through quickly.  I'm
> > curious if it deserves a comment in the code too, since it does feel
> > slightly unusual.
>
> I would argue that "i + 1 < N" is a more natural way to write this,
> because we use "i + 1" as an index, so we want to ensure the index
> we are about to use is within range. "i < N - 1" is the backwards
> way to write that statement.