Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] tag.c: use 'ref-filter' APIs

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Karthik Nayak [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

What I was thinking of was getting rid of the whole "align" feature where
you provide a value to which it would align.

Something like:  --format="%(item:modifieralign)" which would use something
on the lines of what the max-width calculator in branch -l uses, to get the max
alignment size. But the problem is that ref-filter goes through the refs using
a function which has no connections with the atoms used. So a more practical
solution would be --format="%(item:modifieralign=X)" where we could provide a
means of calculating X via ref-filter. Something like this in tag.c:

int max_width = get_max_width("<item to get max_width of>");
use this max_width to then do a
--format="%(item:modifieralign=X)", where X = max_width

What do you think?

This is where separate "alignment atoms" (instead of alignment
modifiers) make sense. Suppose you introduce another function, let's
say print_all() for now, to wrap the "for (i < maxcount)" loop at the
end of for-each-ref, you would have total control over display and
formatting. populate_value() generates empty strings for these
alignment atoms (because they don't really have true values). Those
alignment atoms are recognized in print_all() and
show_ref_array_item(). In print_all(), if it sees max width needs to
be calculated (because the user does not specify the width), it can
call populate_value() for an atom for all rows. show_ref_array_item()
does the padding and even truncating if needed. This pattern is
similar to how print_columns() works, first we collect data of the
whole "table", then we place them line by line.

It sounds good to me. But it may not be the best option, I don't know.
And it may create unnecessary work. So you and your mentors decide.
--
Duy

Sounds good, but what you're saying goes on the lines of interdependence of
atoms, since we would have separate atoms. Not sure we want to do that right
now.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak