Re: [PATCH 5/9] Add "skip_unmerged" option to unpack_trees.

> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >  		if (any_files) {
> >> > -			if (o->merge) {
> >> > +			if (skip_entry) {
> >> > +				do
> >> > +					o->pos++;
> >> > +				while (o->pos < active_nr &&
> >> > +				       !strcmp(active_cache[o->pos]->name,
> >> > +					       src[0]->name));
> >> > +			} else if (o->merge) {
> >> 
> >> Maybe it is just me, but I would have thought
> >> 
> >> 				while (++o->pos < active_nr)
> >> 					if (strcmp(active_cache[o->pos]->name,
> >> 							src[0]->name))
> >> 						break;
> >> 
> >> more readable.  But that's maybe because I have trouble with do ... while 
> >> constructs logically (I like to see the loop condition first, then the 
> >> loop body).
> >
> > I find yours less readable, because the loop condition is an exceptional 
> > case (this is the last entry, so we run out of active_cache before finding 
> > anything else), and you've got the actual effect of the loop in the 
> > condition instead of the body, and I find using the value of ++x or x++ a 
> > bit confusing outside of regular idioms. I'd go for:
> >
> > 				o->pos++;
> > 				while (o->pos < active_nr &&
> > 				       !strcmp(active_cache[o->pos]->name,
> > 					       src[0]->name))
> > 					o->pos++;
> >
> > if you care, though; it's not bad to make it clear we're skipping the 
> > first of these entries based on a different consideration from the rest 
> > (the first is the entry we decided to skip, and the rest are ones that 
> > match it in filename).
> 
> The last one is vastly more readable than your original, and
> moderately easier to follow than Dscho's, at least to me.