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

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > 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).