Re: [RFC/PATCH 09/11] branch.c: use 'ref-filter' data structures

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Matthieu Moy
>> <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>>> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +static void ref_array_append(struct ref_array *array, const char *refname)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       size_t len = strlen(refname);
>>>>> +       struct ref_array_item *ref = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct ref_array_item) + len + 1);
>>>>> +       memcpy(ref->refname, refname, len);
>>>>> +       ref->refname[len] = '\0';
>>>
>>> This looks very much like new_ref_array_item, except that the later also
>>> takes an objectname parameter. I find it suspicious that you leave the
>>> objectname field uninitialized.
>>>
>>
>> Well the objectname is not required here, the idea is to retain the way branch.c
>> works.
>>
>>> Why is this code not calling new_ref_array_item?
>>>
>>
>> Because no objectname is there.
>
> You do have the object_id in the scope of the call-site, so why not use
> it?
>
> (Well, in any case, do as you think is best, it's temporary throw-away
> code, we shouldn't loose too much time polishing it)
>

>>> The function disapears in the next commit, but I also think that this
>>> function deserves to exist in ref-filter.{c,h} and remain after the end
>>> of the series.
>>>
>>
>> Why though? I don't see the need when new_ref_array_item() is present.
>
> OK, if the function is specificly for "append an item but leave the
> objectname uninitialized", it's too specific to be useful somewhere
> else. But then, make it more explicit in the name of the function and/or
> in a comment.
>