Re: [PATCH 2/4] string-list: replace negative index encoding with "exact_match" parameter

[shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 09:56:08AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> shejialuo <shejialuo@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > We would return negative index to indicate exact match by converting the
> > original positive index to be "-1 - index" in
> > "string_list_find_insert_index", which requires callers to decode this
> > information.
> >
> > This is bad due to the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. The callers need to convert the negative index back to the original
> >    positive value, which requires the callers to understand the detail
> >    of the function.
> 
> That has pretty much been the convention so far, not convincing that
> it is "bad" at all.
> 

Good point, I somehow like to use the words containing emotion, which is
not suitable. And after googling, I realize that this is the convention.

> > 2. As we have to return negative index, we need to specify the return
> >    type to be `int` instead of `size_t`, which would cause sign compare
> >    warnings.
> 
> That sounds more like the tail wagging the dog.
> 
> Construct your argument the other way around, perhaps?
> 
>  - We NEED to be able to use the full range of size_t to express the
>    index in the array string_list holds for SUCH AND SUCH REASONS.
>    But string_list_find_insert_index() uses "int", which may not be
>    large enough to cover the range size_t covers.
> 
>  - In addition, in order to signal that the returned value for a
>    query is about an existing entry in the array, or a location that
>    an entry would be inserted at, we use a signed int and use the
>    bog standard "-1 - index" encoding for this purpose.  This
>    further halves the range of valid array index.
> 
>  - To allow us to use the full range of size_t, use full size_t for
>    the index, and have a separate bit to tell if that index is about
>    an existing entry, or where the queried entry would be stored at
>    if we inserted it.
> 
> Your argument does not justify the first point, your desire to use
> size_t in the first place, and that is what makes it sound
> backwards, I think..

Thanks for the suggestion, I will improve this in the next version.

Thanks,
Jialuo