Re: [PATCH 2/9] add strip_suffix function

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 08:54:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > For that reason, the "mem" form puts its length parameter
> > next to the buffer (since they are a pair), and the string
> > form puts it at the end (since it is an out-parameter). The
> > compiler can notice when you get the order wrong, which
> > should help prevent writing one when you meant the other.
> 
> Very sensible consideration.  I like commits that careful thinking
> behind them shows through them.

I would like to take credit for advanced thinking, but I actually did
what felt natural, and only noticed the "compiler will tell you when you
are wrong" effect when I got it wrong while writing a later patch in the
series. :)

> If we want to avoid implying NUL-termination, the only way to do so
> would be to use wording that does not hint shortening.  At least for
> the C-string variant, which is measuring the length of the basename
> part (i.e. `basename $str $suffix`) without touching anything else,
> e.g. basename_length("hello.c", ".c", &len), but at the same time
> you want to make it a boolean to signal if the string ends with the
> suffix, so perhaps has_suffix("hello.c", ".c", &len)?

I think that invites some confusion with "ends_with", which is the same
thing (but just does not take the "len" parameter). We could just add
this feature to ends_with, and ask callers who do not care to pass NULL,
but that makes those call sites uglier.

Having had a day to mull it over, and having read your email, I think I
still prefer strip_suffix.

-Peff