Re: [PATCH 04/35] refspec: introduce struct refspec

Brandon Williams [off-list ref] writes:

The reversed order of these two definitions looks somewhat unusual.
I guess the reason why you made FETCH true and PUSH false is
probably because quite a lot of places in the existing code we do

	if (fetch)
		do the fetch thing;
 	else
		do the push thing;

i.e. "fetch" variable is used as "is this a fetch: yes/no?"
boolean, and a caller that mysteriously passes "1" (or "0")
is harder to read than necessary.  Being able to pass REFSPEC_PUSH
instead of "0" would certainly make the caller easier to read.  But
as long as the variable is understood as "is_fetch? Yes/no", the
caller can pass Yes or No and be still descriptive enough.

I think the way to make such a code more readable would not be to
rewrite the above to

	if (fetch_or_push)
		do the fetch thing;
 	else
		do the push thing;

Rather it would be 

	if (fetch_or_push == REFSPEC_FETCH)
		do the fetch thing;
 	else
		do the push thing;

And once you have gone that far, the actual "enum" value assignment
no longer makes difference.

+#define REFSPEC_INIT_FETCH { .fetch = REFSPEC_FETCH }
+#define REFSPEC_INIT_PUSH { .fetch = REFSPEC_PUSH }
+
+struct refspec {
+	struct refspec_item *items;
+	int alloc;
+	int nr;
+
+	const char **raw;
+	int raw_alloc;
+	int raw_nr;
+
+	int fetch;
+};
+
+void refspec_item_init(struct refspec_item *item, const char *refspec, int fetch);
+void refspec_item_clear(struct refspec_item *item);
+void refspec_init(struct refspec *rs, int fetch);
+void refspec_append(struct refspec *rs, const char *refspec);
+void refspec_appendn(struct refspec *rs, const char **refspecs, int nr);
+void refspec_clear(struct refspec *rs);
+
 #endif /* REFSPEC_H */