Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
> Hi Junio,
>
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
>>
>> >> In other words, at some point wouldn't we be better off with
>> >> something like this
>> >>
>> >> struct {
>> >> enum id;
>> >> const char *id_string;
>> >> enum error_level { FSCK_PASS, FSCK_WARN, FSCK_ERROR };
>> >> } possible_fsck_errors[];
>> >
>> > I considered that, and Michael Haggerty also suggested that in a private
>> > mail. However, I find that there is a clear hierarchy in the default
>> > messages: fatal errors, errors, warnings and infos.
>>
>> I am glad I am not alone ;-)
>> ...
> Oh, but please understand that this hierarchy only applies to the default
> settings. All of these settings can be overridden individually – and the
> first override will initialize a full array with the default settings.
But that means that the runtime needs to switch between two code
with and without override, no?
> if (options->strict_mode)
> return options->strict_mode[msg_id];
In other words, I think this is misleading and unnecessary
optimization for the "full array" allocation. A code that uses an
array of a struct like the above that Michael and I independently
suggested would initialize once with or without an override and then
at the runtime there is no "if the array is there use it"
conditional.
I do not know why Michael suggested the same thing, but the reason
why I prefer that arrangement is because I think it would be easier
to read and maintain.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
