Re: [PATCH v17 05/14] ref-filter: introduce match_atom_name()

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Matthieu Moy [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

OTOH, you are now accepting %(atom:) as a synonym to %(atom), and it's
not clear whether this is a deliberate decition.

I would say so.  When the caller wants to reject %(atom:), the
caller can tell it by checking val[0] == '\0' and reject that.

So it is better if you did not do this:

quoted

	if (!body[1]) {
		/* "atom_name:" */
		*val = NULL;
		return 1;
	}

which robs that information from the caller.

OK. Just dropping this part lets the code fall back to

	/* "atom_name:... */
	*val = body + 1;
	return 1;

right below in my version. It also accepts it (return 1) but lets val
point to an empty string. Makes sense.

And indeed, without this, my code looks a lot like Karthik's one, just
dropping the "|| !body[1]" part in a condition.

In any case, I'd like to see "atom_name:" explicitly mentionned
somewhere in a comment, if only to make it clear that what is done with
it is deliberate (e.g. avoid having someone not following this
conversation later considering this %(atom:) thing to be a bug and try
to fix it).

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/