Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] cache-tree: simplify verify_cache() prototype

Derrick Stolee [off-list ref] writes:

On 1/23/2021 3:24 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

-       for (i = 0; i < entries - 1; i++) {
+       for (i = 0; i + 1 < istate->cache_nr; i++) {
                /* path/file always comes after path because of the way
                 * the cache is sorted.  Also path can appear only once,
                 * which means conflicting one would immediately follow.
                 */
-               const struct cache_entry *this_ce = cache[i];
-               const struct cache_entry *next_ce = cache[i + 1];
+               const struct cache_entry *this_ce = istate->cache[i];
+               const struct cache_entry *next_ce = istate->cache[i + 1];
                const char *this_name = this_ce->name;
                const char *next_name = next_ce->name;
                int this_len = ce_namelen(this_ce);

Makes sense.  Thanks for explaining the i + 1 < istate->cache_nr bit
in the commit message; made it easier to read through quickly.  I'm
curious if it deserves a comment in the code too, since it does feel
slightly unusual.

I would argue that "i + 1 < N" is a more natural way to write this,
because we use "i + 1" as an index, so we want to ensure the index
we are about to use is within range. "i < N - 1" is the backwards
way to write that statement.

Our mails have crossed, I guess.  Comparing i+1 and N is also good.