Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pretty: add %(decorate[:<options>]) format

From: Andy Koppe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 23:06:57 +0100

On 11/08/2023 21:38, Junio C Hamano wrote:
 > Andy Koppe <[email-masked]> writes:
 >
 >> There are a number of uses of designated initializers already, so
 >> hopefully compound literals aren't too much of an extra challenge.
 >
 > I do not see how one leads to the other here.  I'd prefer not to see
 > use of a new construct we do not currently use mixed in a new code,
 > even if it is mentioned in the proposed log message.

Okay.

Would this style be acceptable to fulfil Glen's request to name the
fields?

	case 'D':
		{
			const struct decoration_options opts = {
				.prefix = "",
				.suffix = ""
			};

			format_decorations(sb, commit, c->auto_color, &opts);
		}
		return 1;

Andy