patchbuiltin/remote: remove postfixcmp() and use suffixcmp() instead

> As postfixcmp() has always been static in builtin/remote.c
> and is used nowhere else, it makes more sense to remove it
> and use suffixcmp() instead in builtin/remote.c, rather than
> to remove suffixcmp().
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
> ---
>  builtin/remote.c | 14 +++-----------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c
> index 4e14891..9b3a98e 100644
> --- a/builtin/remote.c
> +++ b/builtin/remote.c
> @@ -80,14 +80,6 @@ static int verbose;
>  static int show_all(void);
>  static int prune_remote(const char *remote, int dry_run);
>  
> -static inline int postfixcmp(const char *string, const char *postfix)
> -{
> -	int len1 = strlen(string), len2 = strlen(postfix);
> -	if (len1 < len2)
> -		return 1;
> -	return strcmp(string + len1 - len2, postfix);
> -}
> -
>  static int fetch_remote(const char *name)
>  {
>  	const char *argv[] = { "fetch", name, NULL, NULL };
> @@ -277,13 +269,13 @@ static int config_read_branches(const char *key, const char *value, void *cb)
>  		enum { REMOTE, MERGE, REBASE } type;
>  
>  		key += 7;
> -		if (!postfixcmp(key, ".remote")) {
> +		if (!suffixcmp(key, ".remote")) {
>  			name = xstrndup(key, strlen(key) - 7);
>  			type = REMOTE;
> -		} else if (!postfixcmp(key, ".merge")) {
> +		} else if (!suffixcmp(key, ".merge")) {
>  			name = xstrndup(key, strlen(key) - 6);
>  			type = MERGE;
> -		} else if (!postfixcmp(key, ".rebase")) {
> +		} else if (!suffixcmp(key, ".rebase")) {
>  			name = xstrndup(key, strlen(key) - 7);
>  			type = REBASE;
>  		} else

> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
> 
>> Commit 8cc5b290 (git merge -X<option>, 25 Nov 2009) introduced
>> suffixcmp() with nearly the same implementation as postfixcmp()
>> that already existed since commit 211c8968 (Make git-remote a
>> builtin, 29 Feb 2008).
> 
> This "nearly the same" piqued my curiosity ;-)

> The postfixcmp() you are removing will say "f" > ".txt" while
> suffixcmp() will say "f" < ".txt".
> 
> As postfixcmp() is only used to compare for equality, the
> distinction does not matter and does not affect the correctness of
> this patch, but I am not sure which answer is more correct.

> I do not think anybody sane uses prefixcmp() or suffixcmp() for
> anything but checking with zero; in other words, I suspect that all
> uses of Xcmp() can be replaced with !!Xcmp(), so as a separate
> clean-up patch, we may at least want to make it clear that the
> callers should not expect anything but "does str have sfx as its
> suffix, yes or no?" by doing something like this:
> 
>  int suffixcmp(const char *str, const char *suffix)
>  {
>  	int len = strlen(str), suflen = strlen(suffix);
>  	if (len < suflen)
>  		return -1;
>  	else
> -		return strcmp(str + len - suflen, suffix);
> +		return !!strcmp(str + len - suflen, suffix);
>  }
> 
> I am not absolutely sure about doing the same to prefixcmp(),
> though. It could be used for ordering, even though no existing code
> seems to do so.

> I do not think anybody sane uses prefixcmp() or suffixcmp() for
> anything but checking with zero; in other words, I suspect that all
> uses of Xcmp() can be replaced with !!Xcmp(), so as a separate
> clean-up patch, we may at least want to make it clear that the
> callers should not expect anything but "does str have sfx as its
> suffix, yes or no?" by doing something like this:
>
>  int suffixcmp(const char *str, const char *suffix)
>  {
>  	int len = strlen(str), suflen = strlen(suffix);
>  	if (len < suflen)
>  		return -1;
>  	else
> -		return strcmp(str + len - suflen, suffix);
> +		return !!strcmp(str + len - suflen, suffix);
>  }
>
> I am not absolutely sure about doing the same to prefixcmp(),
> though. It could be used for ordering, even though no existing code
> seems to do so.

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > I do not think anybody sane uses prefixcmp() or suffixcmp() for
> > anything but checking with zero; in other words, I suspect that all
> > uses of Xcmp() can be replaced with !!Xcmp(), so as a separate
> > clean-up patch, we may at least want to make it clear that the
> > callers should not expect anything but "does str have sfx as its
> > suffix, yes or no?" by doing something like this:
> >
> >  int suffixcmp(const char *str, const char *suffix)
> >  {
> >  	int len = strlen(str), suflen = strlen(suffix);
> >  	if (len < suflen)
> >  		return -1;
> >  	else
> > -		return strcmp(str + len - suflen, suffix);
> > +		return !!strcmp(str + len - suflen, suffix);
> >  }
> >
> > I am not absolutely sure about doing the same to prefixcmp(),
> > though. It could be used for ordering, even though no existing code
> > seems to do so.
> 
> I just realized why this suggestion is incomplete; if we were to go
> this route, we should rename the function to has_suffix() or
> something. anything-cmp() ought to be usable as an ordering
> comparison function, but suffixcmp() clearly isn't.

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> 
>> > I do not think anybody sane uses prefixcmp() or suffixcmp() for
>> > anything but checking with zero; in other words, I suspect that all
>> > uses of Xcmp() can be replaced with !!Xcmp(), so as a separate
>> > clean-up patch, we may at least want to make it clear that the
>> > callers should not expect anything but "does str have sfx as its
>> > suffix, yes or no?" by doing something like this:
>> >
>> >  int suffixcmp(const char *str, const char *suffix)
>> >  {
>> >  	int len = strlen(str), suflen = strlen(suffix);
>> >  	if (len < suflen)
>> >  		return -1;
>> >  	else
>> > -		return strcmp(str + len - suflen, suffix);
>> > +		return !!strcmp(str + len - suflen, suffix);
>> >  }
>> >
>> > I am not absolutely sure about doing the same to prefixcmp(),
>> > though. It could be used for ordering, even though no existing code
>> > seems to do so.
>> 
>> I just realized why this suggestion is incomplete; if we were to go
>> this route, we should rename the function to has_suffix() or
>> something. anything-cmp() ought to be usable as an ordering
>> comparison function, but suffixcmp() clearly isn't.
>
> I have to admit that I do not understand why a change in suffixcmp()'s
> behavior is needed.