Re: [PATCH v4] git: treat "-C <treat>" as a no-op when <path> is empty

[karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>]

On 03/08/2015 12:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:49 AM, karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also "*(*argv)[1]" seems more readable to me, maybe more of a perspective?
>>
>> I also had considered suggesting (*argv)[1][0] as more readable, but
>> it is primarily personal taste, and I didn't want to bike-shed the
>> issue.
>
> I didn't mention that in earlier review rounds for the same reason,
> but I saw Andreas Schwab also independently made the same comment,
> so that makes three of us.
>
> That does not change the fact that this is merely a matter of
> preference; I wouldn't even call this one a "taste" (use of which
> implies that there are judgement involved, as in "good taste" and
> "bad taste").
>
> But because it is "preference", the only time we can discuss is when
> a new code is submitted and is under review.  Once it is in the
> tree, it is not really worth extra patch noise to go and change.
>
> As everybody knows, POINTER[0] and *POINTER are equivalent.  We have
> quite a few places where we say "let's treat passing an empty string
> the same as not passing an argument at all" with
>
> 	if (!POINTER || !*POINTER)
>          	; /* no-op */
> 	else {
>          	/* do something with POINTER */
>                  fn(POINTER);
> 	}
>
> and we could say !POINTER[0] instead of !*POINTER, interchangeably.
>
> We tend to prefer (again, I do not think this is particularly a
> "taste" thing) *POINTER over POINTER[0] when POINTER is just a
> single variable in the above pattern we often see in our code.
>
> But when POINTER is an expression like (*argv)[1], where you unwrap
> the operators according to their precedences, it often is easier to
> read if you do not have to flip your eyes left and right too often.
>
> You first look at "argv", then notice the prefix "*" (you have to
> move your eyes to the left here) and know argv points at a location
> that holds a pointer.  Then you notice the suffix [1] (now to the
> right) and know that pointer points at an array and the expression
> is talking about in its second element.
>
> Now, you want to say that second element is actually a pointer to a
> string and want to talk about the beginning of that string.  If you
> express it as "*(*argv)[1]", it forces the reader to go back to the
> left end once more.  If you write it as "(*argv)[1][0]", the reader
> can keep going to the right, starting from the last thing the reader
> read and understood (which is the "[1]" at the right end).
>
> At least, that is how I analyze _my_ preference---the latter feels
> easier on my eyes.
>
> But as I said this is a mere preference thing.
>

The way you put it, it makes a lot of sense that most would prefer 
"(*argv)[1][0]" rather than "*(*argv)[1]".

Thanks for clearing that out.
Regards
-Karthik