From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 20:12:35 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 11/17] ref-filter: introduce symref_atom_parser() and refname_atom_parser()
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:
> 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