From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>
Cc: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>,
Brandon Williams <bwilliamseng@gmail.com>,
git <git@vger.kernel.org>, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] t1450: increase test coverage of in-tree d/f detection
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 11:01:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqwo55rwuq.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1f982a11-358c-195d-21f4-0299f5b60ff2@web.de> (=?utf-8?Q?=22R?= =?utf-8?Q?en=C3=A9?= Scharfe"'s message of "Thu, 21 May 2020 15:31:26 +0200")
René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:
>>> +check_duplicate_names () {
>>> + expect=$1 &&
>>> + shift &&
>>> + names=$@ &&
>>
>> It doesn't really make sense to use $@ here since we're not using the
>> argument list behaviour of $@; we're just expanding it normally. I would
>> replace this with $* instead.
>
> The assignment to $names flattens the list, so $@ and $* behave the same
> here.
> ...
> At least I'd like to keep the $@ as kind of a reminder that we want to
> pass on arguments (full names), not words.
I personally prefer to use "$*" when we are not invoking the "list"
magic of "$@" and switch it to "$@" when it starts to matter, but I
can also understand your "reminder value" reasoning, so I am on the
fence.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-21 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-09 6:19 invalid tree and commit object Brandon Williams
2020-05-09 10:16 ` René Scharfe
2020-05-09 7:16 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-05-09 11:51 ` René Scharfe
2020-05-09 17:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-05-09 19:24 ` René Scharfe
2020-05-09 20:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-05-10 9:07 ` René Scharfe
2020-05-10 16:12 ` René Scharfe
2020-05-11 16:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-05-13 16:27 ` Brandon Williams
2020-05-21 9:51 ` René Scharfe
2020-05-21 9:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] fsck: fix a typo in a comment René Scharfe
2020-05-21 10:10 ` Denton Liu
2020-05-21 11:15 ` René Scharfe
2020-05-21 9:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] t1450: increase test coverage of in-tree d/f detection René Scharfe
2020-05-21 10:20 ` Denton Liu
2020-05-21 13:31 ` René Scharfe
2020-05-21 18:01 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2020-05-21 9:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] t1450: demonstrate undetected in-tree d/f conflict René Scharfe
2020-05-21 9:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] fsck: detect more in-tree d/f conflicts René Scharfe
2020-05-10 16:37 ` invalid tree and commit object Junio C Hamano
2020-05-21 9:51 ` René Scharfe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqwo55rwuq.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=bwilliamseng@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=l.s.r@web.de \
--cc=liu.denton@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).