From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 16:53:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] cleaning up read_object() family of functions
Message-ID: <Y8A7Cb/w0VQk6ppV@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <230112.86v8lbzpj1.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 05:22:04PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> We have members like "struct strbuf"'s "buf", which always needs to be
> init'd, but never "maybe by the user", so the pattern above would work
> there.

We've discussed in the past having a strbuf that points to an existing
buffer, over which it takes ownership. Or a const string that we'd leave
behind (but not free) if we needed to grow.

In those cases you'd want to pass in a buffer to the allocator. Of
course in the case of a strbuf those initializers would probably just be
totally separate from the regular slopbuf one, just because there's not
much else in a strbuf to initialize. You don't gain much from trying to
avoid repetition.

> Anyway, I agree that it's not worth pursuing this in this case.
> 
> But I think it's a neat pattern that we might find use for sooner than
> later for something else.

I remain unconvinced. ;) Mostly just that the lines saved versus the
amount of magic and thought doesn't seem reasonable. But it's something
we can keep in mind as new opportunities show up.

-Peff