Re: [PATCH] fmt-merge-msg: avoid leaking strbuf in shortlog()

> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:18:17PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> 
>>> I'd actually argue the other way: the simplest interface is one where
>>> the string list owns all of its pointers. That keeps the
>>> ownership/lifetime issues clear, and it's one less step for the caller
>>> to have to remember to do at the end (they do have to clear() the list,
>>> but they must do that anyway to free the array of items).
>>>
>>> It does mean that some callers may have to remember to free a temporary
>>> buffer right after adding its contents to the list. But that's a lesser
>>> evil, I think, since the memory ownership issues are all clearly
>>> resolved at the time of add.
>>>
>>> The big cost is just extra copies/allocations.
>>
>> An interface requiring callers to allocate can be used to implement a
>> wrapper that does all allocations for them -- the other way around is
>> harder.  It can be used to avoid object duplication, but duplicates
>> functions.  No idea if that's worth it.
> 
> Sure, but would anybody actually want to _use_ the non-wrapped version?

>>> Having a "format into a string" wrapper doesn't cover _every_ string you
>>> might want to add to a list, but my experience with argv_array_pushf
>>> leads me to believe that it covers quite a lot of cases.
>>
>> It would fit in with the rest of the API -- we have string_list_append()
>> as a wrapper for string_list_append_nodup()+xstrdup() already.  We also
>> have similar functions for strbuf and argv_array.  I find it a bit sad
>> to reimplement xstrfmt() yet again instead of using it directly, though.
> 
> I dunno, I think could provide some safety and some clarity. IOW, why
> _don't_ we like:
> 
>    string_list_append_nodup(list, xstrfmt(fmt, ...));
> 
> ? I think because:
> 
>    1. It's a bit long and ugly.
> 
>    2. It requires a magic "nodup", because we're violating the memory
>       ownership boundary.
> 
>    3. It doesn't provide any safety for the case where strdup_strings is
>       not set, making it easy to leak accidentally.

> Doing:
> 
>    string_list_appendf(list, fmt, ...);
> 
> pushes the memory ownership semantics "under the hood" of the
> string_list API. And as opposed to being a simple wrapper, it could
> assert that strdup_strings is set (we already do some similar assertions
> in the split functions).