From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 20:38:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] commit.c: use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with()
Message-ID: <xmqqha7dk8c7.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <8CB399B0-6781-4702-9EC5-0D0A0CCC3450@quendi.de>

Max Horn <max@quendi.de> writes:

>> +		buf = ident_line;
>> 		if (split_ident_line(&ident,
>> -				     buf + strlen("author "),
>> -				     line_end - (buf + strlen("author "))) ||
>> +				     buf,
>> +				     line_end - buf) ||
>> 		    !ident.date_begin || !ident.date_end)
>> 			goto fail_exit; /* malformed "author" line */
>> 		break;
>
> Why not get rid of that assignment to "buf", and use ident_line
> instead of buf below? That seems like it would be more readable,
> wouldn't it?

Yes, and also now the argument list is much shorter, you could
probably do it on two lines instead of three:

                if (split_ident_line(&ident,
                                     ident_line, line_end - ident_line) ||
                    ...


>> @@ -1193,10 +1195,9 @@ static void parse_gpg_output(struct signature_check *sigc)
>> 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sigcheck_gpg_status); i++) {
>> 		const char *found, *next;
>> 
>> -		if (starts_with(buf, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1)) {
>> -			/* At the very beginning of the buffer */
>> -			found = buf + strlen(sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1);
>> -		} else {
>> +		found = skip_prefix(buf, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1);
>> +		/* At the very beginning of the buffer */
>
> Do we really need that comment, and in that spot? The code seemed
> clear enough to me without it. But if you think keeping is better,
> perhaps move it to *before* the skip_prefix, and add a trailing
> "?"

Both good suggestions (I tend to prefer the removal).

Thanks.