Re: [PATCH 3/3] shorten_unambiguous_ref(): avoid sscanf()

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > It does indeed. I pulled the logic from skip_prefix(), thinking that by
> > relying on it I would avoid making a stupid mistake. Oh well. :)
> >
> > Doing it like this is much more readable:
> > ...
> > I'll hold on to that (plus an adjustment to the comment below to match,
> > and perhaps a test for this negative-match case) for a day or so to give
> > anybody else a chance to comment, and then send out a v2 tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks, and surely that is very readable.
> 
> Alternatively, I think you can just compare refname and rule until
> they diverge, without doing any special casing for per-cent on the
> rule side inside the loop.
> 
> If you do not find any difference, or the byte that differ is not
> the per-cent at the beginning of "%.*s" on the rule side, they they
> do not match.