From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:49:46 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] branch.c: use 'ref-filter' data structures
Message-ID: <vpq7fnutdj9.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZQVwECZ=0oJdFcCWJwAUf7gYaF5pGweKDAFpfJujw-Q1A@mail.gmail.com>

Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Matthieu Moy
> <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>       /* Print detached HEAD before sorting and printing the rest */
>>> -     if (detached) {
>>> -             print_ref_item(&ref_list.list[index - 1], maxwidth, verbose, abbrev,
>>> -                            detached, remote_prefix);
>>> -             index -= 1;
>>> +     if (filter->kind & FILTER_REFS_DETACHED_HEAD) {
>>> +             print_ref_item(array.items[array.nr - 1], maxwidth, filter, remote_prefix);
>>> +             free_array_item(array.items[array.nr - 1]);
>>> +             array.nr--;
>>
>> Ah, this answers my previous remark: indeed, you are removing the
>> element from the array completely after this patch. You may want to
>> modify the previous patch to start doing it earlier, but I think it's
>> not worth the trouble: I agree with the final state, only the
>> intermediate state is suboptimal (but still acceptable to me at least).
>
> Yes! Eric suggested this. It doesn't make much sense in the previous
> patch, cause I'd have to introduce something along the lines of
> free_array_item() only to be removed/replaced here.

OK, it makes sense.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/