From: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:45:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Revert "send-email: extract email-parsing code into a subroutine"
Message-ID: <ZTJaVzt75r0iHPzR@ugly>
In-Reply-To: <20231020101310.GB2673716@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 06:13:10AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>But one thing that gives me pause is that the neither before or after
>this patch do we handle continuation lines like:
>
>  Subject: this is the beginning
>    and this is more subject
>
>And it would probably be a lot easier to add when storing the headers in
>a hash (it's not impossible to do it the other way, but you basically
>have to delay processing each line with a small state machine).
>
that seems like a rather significant point, doesn't it?

>So another option is to just fix the individual bugs separately.
>
... so that seems preferable to me, given that the necessary fixes seem 
rather trivial.

> I guess "readable" is up for debate here, but I find the inline handling
> a lot easier to follow
>
any particular reason for that?

> (and it's half as many lines; most of the diffstat is the new tests).

>-	if ($parsed_email{'From'}) {
>-		$sender = delete($parsed_email{'From'});
>-	}

this verbosity could be cut down somewhat using just

   $sender = delete($parsed_email{'From'});

and if the value can be pre-set and needs to be preserved,

   $sender = delete($parsed_email{'From'}) // $sender;

but this seems kind of counter-productive legibility-wise.

regards