On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 06:36:30PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 19.09.19 um 23:46 schrieb SZEDER Gábor:
> > Use strip_suffix() instead of open-coding it, making the code more
> > idiomatic.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder....@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > builtin/name-rev.c | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c
> > index c785fe16ba..d345456656 100644
> > --- a/builtin/name-rev.c
> > +++ b/builtin/name-rev.c
> > @@ -317,11 +317,11 @@ static const char *get_rev_name(const struct object
> > *o, struct strbuf *buf)
> > if (!n->generation)
> > return n->tip_name;
> > else {
> > - int len = strlen(n->tip_name);
> > - if (len > 2 && !strcmp(n->tip_name + len - 2, "^0"))
> > - len -= 2;
> > + size_t len;
> > + strip_suffix(n->tip_name, "^0", &len);
> > strbuf_reset(buf);
> > - strbuf_addf(buf, "%.*s~%d", len, n->tip_name, n->generation);
> > + strbuf_addf(buf, "%.*s~%d", (int) len, n->tip_name,
> > + n->generation);
> > return buf->buf;
> > }
> > }
> >
>
> This gets rid of the repeated magic string length constant 2, which is
> nice. But why not go all the way to full strbuf-ness? It's shorter,
> looks less busy, and the extra two copied bytes shouldn't matter in a
> measurable way.
>
> else {
> strbuf_reset(buf);
> strbuf_addstr(buf, n->tip_name);
> strbuf_strip_suffix(buf, "^0");
> strbuf_addf(buf, "~%d", n->generation);
> return buf->buf;
> }
Oh, I like this, thanks!
