Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] tag.c: use 'ref-filter' APIs

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What I was thinking of was getting rid of the whole "align" feature where
>> you provide a value to which it would align.
>>
>> Something like:  --format="%(item:modifieralign)" which would use something
>> on the lines of what the max-width calculator in branch -l uses, to get the max
>> alignment size. But the problem is that ref-filter goes through the refs using
>> a function which has no connections with the atoms used. So a more practical
>> solution would be --format="%(item:modifieralign=X)" where we could provide a
>> means of calculating X via ref-filter. Something like this in tag.c:
>>
>> int max_width = get_max_width("<item to get max_width of>");
>> use this max_width to then do a
>> --format="%(item:modifieralign=X)", where X = max_width
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> This is where separate "alignment atoms" (instead of alignment
> modifiers) make sense. Suppose you introduce another function, let's
> say print_all() for now, to wrap the "for (i < maxcount)" loop at the
> end of for-each-ref, you would have total control over display and
> formatting. populate_value() generates empty strings for these
> alignment atoms (because they don't really have true values). Those
> alignment atoms are recognized in print_all() and
> show_ref_array_item(). In print_all(), if it sees max width needs to
> be calculated (because the user does not specify the width), it can
> call populate_value() for an atom for all rows. show_ref_array_item()
> does the padding and even truncating if needed. This pattern is
> similar to how print_columns() works, first we collect data of the
> whole "table", then we place them line by line.
>
> It sounds good to me. But it may not be the best option, I don't know.
> And it may create unnecessary work. So you and your mentors decide.
> --
> Duy