Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> But I wonder if things would be simpler if we did not touch the commit
> code path at all. I.e., if this were simply "--no-object-names", and it
> touched only show_object().
Yeah, that sounds more tempting. And the refined code structure you
suggested ...
>> @@ -255,6 +262,10 @@ static void show_object(struct object *obj, const char
>> *name, void *cb_data)
>> display_progress(progress, ++progress_counter);
>> if (info->flags & REV_LIST_QUIET)
>> return;
>> + if (arg_oid_only) {
>> + printf("%s\n", oid_to_hex(&obj->oid));
>> + return;
>> + }
>> show_object_with_name(stdout, obj, name);
>> }
>>
>
> A minor style point, but I think this might be easier to follow without
> the early return, since we are really choosing to do A or B. Writing:
>
> if (arg_oid_only)
> printf(...);
> else
> show_object_with_name(...);
>
> shows that more clearly, I think.
... is a good way to clearly show that intention, I would think.
