From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F470C2D0C3 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D20920828 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Lc5Qmpgd" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726220AbfL0WVW (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:21:22 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:63954 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725860AbfL0WVV (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:21:21 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8731524146; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:21:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=RhQwkQ7QJYGUAyjYeB4nK0tV3iQ=; b=Lc5Qmp gdZsaUvwyc2dwzYtnQAitnusxupCqsGgJsDLbJ9WPAXfta1QNyNdvPmysTAPmt9c FpvJN9iHkQNF4lS0lflJvfkZBcIZJ4JqtDb7c5cLpKGfXPEN7Xihs9mPjafovZdF 0PKbBqOWB4gy4BCjyLYdanyyk1sZ0Pu868KqM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=cVMYRZOkKenS5ea/W8X+92GAPyQl5CUe uTkjA501qbMje7BvflWj+RZ9urLLlIz9Pj1pfQauSlorPLrVY8OkJ/gXjAtKqvI3 +JeUIBhtDDlJZaC+1KGstfiOmL0ed55hgdm/VpQaY7cgJhRQvb1+Oe5AqqSrqwaX SY5iSYYsR3M= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE6624145; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:21:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAB3324144; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:21:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Hans Jerry Illikainen Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] gpg-interface: add minTrustLevel as a configuration option References: <20191219000140.9056-1-hji@dyntopia.com> <20191222003123.10555-1-hji@dyntopia.com> <20191222003123.10555-2-hji@dyntopia.com> <87r20pkhir.hji@dyntopia.com> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:21:17 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87r20pkhir.hji@dyntopia.com> (Hans Jerry Illikainen's message of "Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:46:52 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 346281F4-28F7-11EA-BAD7-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hans Jerry Illikainen writes: >> I wonder if the code becomes less misleading if we either (1) >> renamed 'next' to a name that hints more strongly that it is not the >> 'next' line but the end of the current token we are interested in, >> or (2) get rid of the pointer and instead counted size of the >> current token we are interested in, or perhaps both? > > Yeah the name 'next' does seem a bit counter-intuitive when used in > relation to 'line'. Looking through the function it seems that both (1) > and (2) would work. Thanks for thinking the code a bit more than necessary for the purpose of this topic. Let's leave such a clean-up outside the scope of this topic, but perhaps a #leftoverbits marker may help us remember it as something we could do when we have nothing else better to do ;-)