Re: [PATCH 19/21] grep: use writable strbuf from caller in grep_tree()

Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  [off-list ref] writes:

+		hit = grep_tree(opt, pathspec, &tree, &base, base.neglen);

If you are going to let the users of strbuf API to refer directly to the
field, I think "neglen" should be renamed to something more reasonable,
say, "offset".

I am still debating myself if this strbuf_offset is anugly hack merely to
allow the implementation of "grep" not to carry one extra offset around
throughout its callchain, or if it is generic enough that other/future
callers would benefit from.  I am leaning toward to think this is an ugly
hack, as a new caller that wants to carry _two_ offsets into a strbuf
wouldn't get much benefit from this new API.  But I may be missreading
your code.