Re: [PATCH v1 23/45] check-ignore: convert to use parse_pathspec

[Adam Spiers <git@adamspiers.org>]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 09:09:33AM +1000, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Adam Spiers <git@adamspiers.org> wrote:
> >> -static int check_ignore(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec)
> >> +static int check_ignore(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >>  {
> >>       struct dir_struct dir;
> >> -     const char *path, *full_path;
> >>       char *seen;
> >>       int num_ignored = 0, dtype = DT_UNKNOWN, i;
> >>       struct path_exclude_check check;
> >>       struct exclude *exclude;
> >> +     struct pathspec pathspec;
> >>
> >>       /* read_cache() is only necessary so we can watch out for submodules. */
> >>       if (read_cache() < 0)
> >> @@ -70,31 +70,39 @@ static int check_ignore(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec)
> >>       dir.flags |= DIR_COLLECT_IGNORED;
> >>       setup_standard_excludes(&dir);
> >>
> >> -     if (!pathspec || !*pathspec) {
> >> +     if (!argc) {
> >
> > Is there a compelling reason for introducing argc as a new parameter
> > to check_ignore(), other than simplifying the above line?  And why
> > rename the pathspec parameter to argv?  Both these changes are
> > misleading AFAICS, since paths provided to check_ignore() can come
> > from sources other than CLI arguments (i.e. via --stdin).
> 
> Because I introduced "struct pathspec pathspec;" I need to rename the
> argument "pathspec" to something else.

Ah, I see - that makes sense :-)

> Maybe we could rename the argument to "paths"?

Sounds fine to me.

> > The introduction of argc also makes it possible to invoke
> > check_ignore() with arguments which are not self-consistent.
> 
> This is the same problem with main()

How could main() be invoked with argc inconsistent with argv?

> and other places that follow this convention.  But I don't mind
> dropping argc either.

What is the reason for that convention?  I'm willing to be persuaded
either way.