Re-work is_source_file

[yaaama]

Complete re-work of the is_source_file function. Changes include:

• Using a lookup table for the extensions that are supported.
• No need use macros to search for the extensions.

Benefits:

• Code produces less assembly.
• Looks nicer.
• We can more easily add file extensions to support.

[agvxov]

The code only produces less assembly because you are calling into libc. Which almost certainly means the function is slower too. Now, this is the kind of performance difference that's not even worth talking about anyways, I'm only bringing it up because you mentioned assembly.

The 'looks nicer' is a bit subjective here. Pulling out the data (suffix list) is generally cleaner, but its actually a code segment that's not really going to change anyways; and the : delimiterring is strange in this context.
This is somewhat besides the point, however the commenting is a little excessive.

I have actually considered refactoring is_source_file before, but I have come to the conclusion that its not that bad at all.

I feel like that by merging this I would be swapping one ok implementation to another ok implementation.

[yaaama]

The code only produces less assembly because you are calling into libc. Which almost certainly means the function is slower too. Now, this is the kind of performance difference that's not even worth talking about anyways, I'm only bringing it up because you mentioned assembly.

The 'looks nicer' is a bit subjective here. Pulling out the data (suffix list) is generally cleaner, but its actually a code segment that's not really going to change anyways; and the : delimiterring is strange in this context. This is somewhat besides the point, however the commenting is a little excessive.

I have actually considered refactoring is_source_file before, but I have come to the conclusion that its not that bad at all.

I feel like that by merging this I would be swapping one ok implementation to another ok implementation.

Good evening David,

your points are very much valid and correct. I will close this PR, thanks for looking over it and giving the helpful feedback!