On May 23, 2014, at 13:05, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:52:08PM -0700, Kyle J. McKay wrote:
Christian brought this up elsewhere, and I agree it's probably
better to
work over the whole buffer, NULs included. I'm happy to re-roll
(or you
can just pick up the version of the pat
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:52:08PM -0700, Kyle J. McKay wrote:
> >Christian brought this up elsewhere, and I agree it's probably better to
> >work over the whole buffer, NULs included. I'm happy to re-roll (or you
> >can just pick up the version of the patch in this thread),
>
> The only reason I
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:04:20PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> >> > Yes, and that would be fine with me (I actually wrote strbuf_tolower for
> >> > my own use, and _then_ realized that we already had such a thing that
> >> > could be replaced).
> >> ...
> > ... I think
>
On May 22, 2014, at 11:41, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:36:37AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Yes, and that would be fine with me (I actually wrote
strbuf_tolower for
my own use, and _then_ realized that we already had such a thing
that
could be replaced).
Do we forbid that
Jeff King writes:
>> > Yes, and that would be fine with me (I actually wrote strbuf_tolower for
>> > my own use, and _then_ realized that we already had such a thing that
>> > could be replaced).
>> ...
> ... I think
> the bigger question is: is this refactor worth doing, since there is
> only on
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:36:37AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Yes, and that would be fine with me (I actually wrote strbuf_tolower for
> > my own use, and _then_ realized that we already had such a thing that
> > could be replaced).
>
> Do we forbid that sb->buf[x] for some x < sb->len to b
Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 05:07:36PM -0700, Kyle J. McKay wrote:
>
>> >+void strbuf_tolower(struct strbuf *sb)
>> >+{
>> >+ size_t i;
>> >+ for (i = 0; i < sb->len; i++)
>> >+ sb->buf[i] = tolower(sb->buf[i]);
>> >+}
>> >+
>>
>> Wouldn't a direct transfer of the l
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 05:07:36PM -0700, Kyle J. McKay wrote:
> >+void strbuf_tolower(struct strbuf *sb)
> >+{
> >+size_t i;
> >+for (i = 0; i < sb->len; i++)
> >+sb->buf[i] = tolower(sb->buf[i]);
> >+}
> >+
>
> Wouldn't a direct transfer of the lowercase function be somethin
On May 21, 2014, at 03:27, Jeff King wrote:
This makes config's lowercase() function public.
Note that we could continue to offer a pure-string
lowercase, but there would be no callers (in most
pure-string cases, we actually duplicate and lowercase the
duplicate).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King
---
9 matches
Mail list logo
