Re: [PATCH 12/13] remote.c: refactor get_remote_ref_states()

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:55:32AM -0500, Jay Soffian wrote:

I see your hmph and raise you a hmph. :-)

Well, I _had_ tried as you suggested first, and thought it yuckier. It
would actually be more like:

OK. My comment was along the lines of "why didn't you think of doing it
this way first?" but apparently you did. ;)

I'm not sure why passing a flag saying what you want is obfuscating.

It doesn't have to be. But from your description and my cursory look
over the code, it seemed like get_remote_ref_states was really
conflating several unrelated things. So breaking it apart would make
sense for the same reason we have "strlen" and "strchr" as separate
functions and not "string_ops(s, WANT_STRLEN)": the function is our
basic unit of reusable work.

But from your description:

caller1() {
  setup_for_get();
  get_thing_one();
}

I didn't realize the commonality was actual setup; I thought it was "do
a list of 5 things, but the first 2 are common, and then callers may
want to some mix of the other 3".

So I think your original patch is fine.

-Peff