On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:08 AM Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 06:46:33PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:

quoted

In this case, though, assuming I understand the intent, I think the
more common and safe idiom in this codebase is something like this:

    struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT;
    strbuf_addstr(&name, "branch");
    size_t len = name.len;
    for (...) {
        strbuf_setlen(&name, len);
        strbuf_addf(&name, "%04d", i);
        ref.refname = name.buf;
        ...
    }
    strbuf_release(&name);

Yeah, I'll convert this to use a `struct strbuf` instead. But instead of
tracking the length I'll just use a `strbuf_reset()` followed by
`strbuf_addf("branch-%04d")`. It's simpler to read and we don't need to
squeeze every last drop of performance out of this loop anyway.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and I agree with the reasoning,
especially the lower cognitive load with strbuf_reset(). Thanks.