Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] ref-filter: add objectsize:disk option

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Olga Telezhnaya <olyatelezhnaya@gmail.com> writes:

> @@ -876,11 +882,13 @@ static void grab_common_values(struct atom_value *val, int deref, struct expand_
>  			name++;
>  		if (!strcmp(name, "objecttype"))
>  			v->s = xstrdup(type_name(oi->type));
> -		else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize")) {
> +		else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize:disk")) {
> +			v->value = oi->disk_size;
> +			v->s = xstrfmt("%lld", (long long)oi->disk_size);

oi.disk_size is off_t; do we know "long long" 

   (1) is available widely enough (I think it is from c99)?

   (2) is sufficiently wide so that we can safely cast off_t to?

   (3) will stay to be sufficiently wide as machines get larger
       together with standard types like off_t in the future?

I'd rather use intmax_t (as off_t is a signed integral type) so that
we do not have to worry about these questions in the first place.

> +		} else if (!strcmp(name, "objectsize")) {
>  			v->value = oi->size;
>  			v->s = xstrfmt("%lu", oi->size);

This is not a suggestion but is a genuine question, but I wonder if
two years down the road somebody who meets this API for the first
time find the asymmetry between "objectsize" and "objectsize:disk" a
tad strange and suggest the former to have "objectsize:real" or some
synonym.  Or we can consider "objectsize" the primary thing (hence
needing no colon-plus-modifier to clarify what kind of size we are
asking) and leave these two deliberatly asymmetric.  I am leaning
towards the latter myself.

> -		}
> -		else if (deref)
> +		} else if (deref)
>  			grab_objectname(name, &oi->oid, v, &used_atom[i]);
>  	}
>  }
>
> --
> https://github.com/git/git/pull/552