From: Carl Smedstad <carl.smedstad@protonmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:06:27 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] check-ignore: --non-matching without --verbose
Message-ID: <qzzAQ1fG52vlhFocoEqahGa8X0FRYpdAzxAHP6NwLXvMFuu0eZQzoa2ew3b1I31puAx__Cr3I2EZObON40rN0UWKT_rSXY3F0tuPqmh2aNc=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <362128ff-690d-8dc1-88fd-620f52b14d54@github.com>

> This may be better to indicate the behavior as predicated on the
> existence of --verbose:
>
> 	If `--verbose` is enabled, then all paths are listed along
> 	with an indicator (`::`) that no matching pattern was found.
> 	Without `--verbose`, list only the paths that do not match
> 	any pattern.

Good point. I've adopted you changes but made some slight changes to the first
line:

	If `--verbose` is enabled, list both matching and non-matching
	paths (non-matching paths along with the indicator `::`). Without
	`--verbose`, list only the paths that do not match any pattern.

> These three blocks all call the same code line. So really you want
> to avoid a single case:
>
> 	if (!quiet &&
> 	    ((verbose && (show_non_matching || pattern)) ||
> 	     (!verbose && !!show_non_matching != !!pattern)))
>
> This is the most direct way to write what you had above. However,
> we could do this more simply:
>
> 	/* If --non-matching, then show if verbose or the pattern is missing. */
> 	if (!quiet && show_non_matching && (verbose || !pattern))
> 		output_pattern(...);
>
> 	/* If not --non-matching, then show if the pattern exists. */
> 	if (!quiet && !show_non_matching && pattern)
> 		output_pattern(...);
>
> Hopefully that's a bit easier to parse. I believe it is
> equivalent.

That is indeed equivalent and a lot easier to read. Implemented the changes in
full. Thanks!