Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] [GSOC] ref-filter: introduce enum atom_type

From: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
	Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
	Hariom Verma <hariom18599@gmail.com>,
	Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] [GSOC] ref-filter: introduce enum atom_type
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 17:25:57 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOLTT8TuMJgETg7F7XG2FhFTC318Ag7dJ=8Zi1CG2AwQXtgHvA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk0o3edxw.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 于2021年5月13日周四 上午7:21写道：
>
> "ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > +/*
> > + * The enum atom_type is used as the coordinates of valid_atom entry.
>
> Usually we do not say "coordinates" when we talk about X of an array
> element A[X].  "... used as an index in the valid_atom[] array." perhaps.
>

Ok, use index instead of coordinates.

> > + * In the atom parsing stage, it will be passed to used_atom.atom_type
> > + * as the identifier of the atom type. We can judge the type of used_atom
>
> You seem to like the verb "judge" (it was also seen in the proposed
> log message for 1/2) and tend to overuse it when we use other verbs;
> in this particular case, probably the right verb is to "check".
>

Yes, "judge" closer to my personal language expression, I will use "check".

> > @@ -965,14 +1017,15 @@ static void grab_common_values(struct atom_value *val, int deref, struct expand_
> >
> >       for (i = 0; i < used_atom_cnt; i++) {
> >               const char *name = used_atom[i].name;
> > +             enum atom_type atom_type = used_atom[i].atom_type;
> >               struct atom_value *v = &val[i];
> >               if (!!deref != (*name == '*'))
> >                       continue;
> >               if (deref)
> >                       name++;
> > -             if (!strcmp(name, "objecttype"))
> > +             if (atom_type == ATOM_OBJECTTYPE)
> >                       v->s = xstrdup(type_name(oi->type));
> > -             else if (starts_with(name, "objectsize")) {
> > +             else if (atom_type == ATOM_OBJECTSIZE) {
> >                       if (used_atom[i].u.objectsize.option == O_SIZE_DISK) {
> >                               v->value = oi->disk_size;
> >                               v->s = xstrfmt("%"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)oi->disk_size);
>
> Replacing !strcmp() with comparison with ATOM_* like the above is
> the best solution for this step, but I wonder if this part (or any
> other part that this patch touches) would benefit from using a
> switch statement on atom_type.  Something to think about in the
> future, after the dust settles.
>
> Thanks.

Well, that's right, use switch can increase readability and maintainability.
This can be used as a future direction.

Thanks.
--
ZheNing Hu