Re: [PATCH v1 23/45] check-ignore: convert to use parse_pathspec

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 09:09:33AM +1000, Duy Nguyen wrote:

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Adam Spiers [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

-static int check_ignore(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec)
+static int check_ignore(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 {
      struct dir_struct dir;
-     const char *path, *full_path;
      char *seen;
      int num_ignored = 0, dtype = DT_UNKNOWN, i;
      struct path_exclude_check check;
      struct exclude *exclude;
+     struct pathspec pathspec;

      /* read_cache() is only necessary so we can watch out for submodules. */
      if (read_cache() < 0)

@@ -70,31 +70,39 @@ static int check_ignore(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec)
      dir.flags |= DIR_COLLECT_IGNORED;
      setup_standard_excludes(&dir);

-     if (!pathspec || !*pathspec) {
+     if (!argc) {

Is there a compelling reason for introducing argc as a new parameter
to check_ignore(), other than simplifying the above line?  And why
rename the pathspec parameter to argv?  Both these changes are
misleading AFAICS, since paths provided to check_ignore() can come
from sources other than CLI arguments (i.e. via --stdin).

Because I introduced "struct pathspec pathspec;" I need to rename the
argument "pathspec" to something else.

Ah, I see - that makes sense :-)

Maybe we could rename the argument to "paths"?

Sounds fine to me.

quoted

The introduction of argc also makes it possible to invoke
check_ignore() with arguments which are not self-consistent.

This is the same problem with main()

How could main() be invoked with argc inconsistent with argv?

and other places that follow this convention.  But I don't mind
dropping argc either.

What is the reason for that convention?  I'm willing to be persuaded
either way.