Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] port branch.c to use ref-filter's printing options

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Matthieu Moy
>> <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>>>> +                             unsigned int nobracket = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +                             if (!strcmp(valp, ",nobracket"))
>>>> +                                     nobracket = 1;
>>>
>>> The code to parse comma-separated values is different here and
>>> elsewhere. I'd rather have the same code (possibly factored into a
>>> helper function), both to get consistent behavior (you're not allowing
>>> %(upstream:nobracket,track) for example, right?) and consistent code.
>>>
>>
>> Speaking of comma-separated values, the only other place we use that is
>> in the align atom. Also I find this very specific to get a function out of.
>> Somehow I think this is the simplest way to go about this.
>
> Well, most pieces of code start with one instance, then two, then
> more ;-). When the second instance starts being different from the
> first, it doesn't give a good example for the future third instance.
>

> This particular piece of code is so important and I won't fight for a
> better factored one, but in general "there are only two instances" is a
> dubious argument to avoid refactoring.
>
> Still, I find it weird to force the nobracket to be always at the same
> position.
>