Re: [PATCH 5/7] xdiff: rename XDL_MERGE_STYLE_DIFF3

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Cc: "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, "David Aguilar" <davvid@gmail.com>,
	"Sergey Organov" <sorganov@gmail.com>,
	"Bagas Sanjaya" <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
	"Elijah Newren" <newren@gmail.com>,
	"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	"Denton Liu" <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] xdiff: rename XDL_MERGE_STYLE_DIFF3
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 12:17:08 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq5yyl5buz.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3168eb15-25a6-a3eb-a498-8effa0c79855@gmail.com

Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

> The subject would make more sense as 'xdiff: rename XDL_MERGE_DIFF3 to
> XDL_MERGE_STYLE_DIFF3' rather than using the new name of the constant
> alone.

True.

>> If we don't specify we are talking about a style, XDL_MERGE_MINIMAL
>> could be confused with a valid value instead of XDL_MERGE_DIFF3, which
>> it isn't.
>
> I don't object to the rename but what is the source of the confusion
> with XDL_MERGE_MINIMAL?

I do not see any confusion, either, but the current XDL_MERGE_DIFF3
being a boolean (i.e. if false, use the output style of the 'merge'
command) and our lack of an enumeration constant for 'merge' means
that a future addition of the third output style would require us to
add XDL_MERGE_$STYLE for both the new style and the traditional
'merge' style.  And If we would end up with XDL_MERGE_DIFF3,
XDL_MERGE_MERGE and XDL_MERGE_FOO for that third output style.

The 'merge' one simply looks strange in that context.  And from that
point of view, this change might be a good way to futureproof the
codebase.

Thanks.