Re: [PATCH 2/4] string-list: replace negative index encoding with "exact_match" parameter

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 8, 2025, 16:56 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqv7lsx4rb.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <aL21gazVeyHMeG-s@ArchLinux>

shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> We would return negative index to indicate exact match by converting the
> original positive index to be "-1 - index" in
> "string_list_find_insert_index", which requires callers to decode this
> information.
>
> This is bad due to the following reasons:
>
> 1. The callers need to convert the negative index back to the original
>    positive value, which requires the callers to understand the detail
>    of the function.

That has pretty much been the convention so far, not convincing that it is "bad" at all.

> 2. As we have to return negative index, we need to specify the return
>    type to be `int` instead of `size_t`, which would cause sign compare
>    warnings.

That sounds more like the tail wagging the dog.

Construct your argument the other way around, perhaps?

 - We NEED to be able to use the full range of size_t to express the
   index in the array string_list holds for SUCH AND SUCH REASONS.
   But string_list_find_insert_index() uses "int", which may not be
   large enough to cover the range size_t covers.

 - In addition, in order to signal that the returned value for a
   query is about an existing entry in the array, or a location that
   an entry would be inserted at, we use a signed int and use the
   bog standard "-1 - index" encoding for this purpose.  This
   further halves the range of valid array index.

 - To allow us to use the full range of size_t, use full size_t for
   the index, and have a separate bit to tell if that index is about
   an existing entry, or where the queried entry would be stored at
   if we inserted it.

Your argument does not justify the first point, your desire to use size_t in the first place, and that is what makes it sound backwards, I think..