Re: [PATCH 1/1] builtin/blame.c: constants into bit shift format
On 16/10/19 06:30PM, Hariom Verma via GitGitGadget wrote:
Show 45 quoted lines
> From: Hariom Verma <hariom18599@gmail.com>
>
> We are looking at bitfield constants, and elsewhere in the Git source
> code, such cases are handled via bit shift operators rather than octal
> numbers, which also makes it easier to spot holes in the range
> (if, say, 1<<5 was missing, it is easier to spot it between 1<<4
> and 1<<6 than it is to spot a missing 040 between a 020 and a 0100).
>
> Signed-off-by: Hariom Verma <hariom18599@gmail.com>
> ---
> builtin/blame.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/blame.c b/builtin/blame.c
> index e946ba6cd9..a57020acf9 100644
> --- a/builtin/blame.c
> +++ b/builtin/blame.c
> @@ -319,18 +319,18 @@ static const char *format_time(timestamp_t time, const char *tz_str,
> return time_buf.buf;
> }
>
> -#define OUTPUT_ANNOTATE_COMPAT 001
> -#define OUTPUT_LONG_OBJECT_NAME 002
> -#define OUTPUT_RAW_TIMESTAMP 004
> -#define OUTPUT_PORCELAIN 010
> -#define OUTPUT_SHOW_NAME 020
> -#define OUTPUT_SHOW_NUMBER 040
> -#define OUTPUT_SHOW_SCORE 0100
> -#define OUTPUT_NO_AUTHOR 0200
> -#define OUTPUT_SHOW_EMAIL 0400
> -#define OUTPUT_LINE_PORCELAIN 01000
> -#define OUTPUT_COLOR_LINE 02000
> -#define OUTPUT_SHOW_AGE_WITH_COLOR 04000
> +#define OUTPUT_ANNOTATE_COMPAT (1<<0)
> +#define OUTPUT_LONG_OBJECT_NAME (1<<1)
> +#define OUTPUT_RAW_TIMESTAMP (1<<2)
> +#define OUTPUT_PORCELAIN (1<<3)
> +#define OUTPUT_SHOW_NAME (1<<4)
> +#define OUTPUT_SHOW_NUMBER (1<<5)
> +#define OUTPUT_SHOW_SCORE (1<<6)
> +#define OUTPUT_NO_AUTHOR (1<<7)
> +#define OUTPUT_SHOW_EMAIL (1<<8)
> +#define OUTPUT_LINE_PORCELAIN (1<<9)
> +#define OUTPUT_COLOR_LINE (1<<10)
> +#define OUTPUT_SHOW_AGE_WITH_COLOR (1<<11)
Nitpick: In the code you remove, tabs were used for alignment. Here, you
use spaces. Unless there is any specific reason to do it this way, might
as well keep the older style.
There was some discussion recently about converting these related #defines to enums [0]. We might consider doing that here.
If you read through that entire thread, you'd see that there were some disagreements about whether using enums for sets of bits is a good idea ([1] and [2]), but it is at least something worth considering while we are on this topic.
FWIW, I think it is a good idea to use an enum here.
>
> static void emit_porcelain_details(struct blame_origin *suspect, int repeat)
> {[0] https://public-inbox.org/git/20191010115230.10623-1-wambui.karugax@gmail.com/ [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20191014182754.82302-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/ [2] https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqk19ag60g.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
