Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] refs: add common refname_match_patterns()

Tom Grennan [off-list ref] writes:

Yes, I should have stated that this emphasized containment over
efficiency.  If instead we stipulate that the caller must list exclusion
patterns before others, this could simply be:

No.

You have to pre-parse and rearrange the pattern[] list *only once* before
matching them against dozens of refs, so instead of forcing the callers do
anything funky, you give a function that gets a pattern[] list and returns
something that can be efficiently used by the match_pattern() function,
and have the caller pass that thing, not the original pattern[] list, to
the match_pattern() function.

That is how pathspec matching side of the logic is arranged.

I keep saying that it is probably not a good idea to directly reuse the
pathspec code, but you would want to study and learn from the overall
structure of it.

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:43:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Tom Grennan [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Yes, I should have stated that this emphasized containment over
efficiency.  If instead we stipulate that the caller must list exclusion
patterns before others, this could simply be:

No.

You have to pre-parse and rearrange the pattern[] list *only once* before
matching them against dozens of refs, so instead of forcing the callers do
anything funky, you give a function that gets a pattern[] list and returns
something that can be efficiently used by the match_pattern() function,
and have the caller pass that thing, not the original pattern[] list, to
the match_pattern() function.

Hmm, I'm not communicating very well; this is exactly what I meant by,

quoted

Of course I'd add a with_exclusions_first() before the
respective ref iterator.

-- 
TomG