Re: [PATCH 2/2] ref-filter: 'contents:trailers' show error if `:` is missing

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Hariom Verma via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
	Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Hariom Verma <hariom18599@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ref-filter: 'contents:trailers' show error if `:` is missing
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:39:07 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPig+cS398dm4W5Q2DnK+bGvw0mOG3916dHPbZ=y1JNrqz1G-w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqmu2qtpxp.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:07 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> > "Hariom Verma via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> >> +static int check_format_field(const char *arg, const char *field, const char **option)
> >> +{
> >> +            else if (*opt == ':') {
> >> +                    *option = ++opt;
> >> +                    return 1;
> >> +            }
>
> And the helper does not have such a breakage.  It looks good.

One minor comment (not worth a re-roll): I personally found:

    *option = ++opt;

more confusing than:

    *option = opt + 1;

The `++opt` places a higher cognitive load on the reader. As a
reviewer, I had to go back and carefully reread the function to see if
the side-effect of `++opt` had some impact which I didn't notice on
the first readthrough. The simpler `opt + 1` does not have a
side-effect, thus is easier to reason about (and doesn't require me to
re-study the function when I encounter it).