Re: [PATCH v7 11/17] ref-filter: introduce symref_atom_parser() and refname_atom_parser()
- From
Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 12, 2016, 20:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAOLa=ZTcBf4MGATxXshzFOMa-M_aEm1zf_bpNnFydbfgdRcEHw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CA+P7+xrHRMZemNfo3gjJryBRR5b4T8VT3t9_CBE5hJJfv+D3PQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> > > What's the reasoning for using separate functions here if they are > exactly identical except for name? Do we intend to add separate > options for this? I don't really have a problem with separate > functions here since it helps avoid confusion but they are identical > otherwise... >
I see no need to have separate functions. Maybe in the future when we plan on adding specific options we could split them. I'll drop the symref_atom_parser() function and use refname_atom_parser() both places.
-- Regards, Karthik Nayak