Re: [PATCH 0/3] Generalized "string function" syntax

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Junio C Hamano schrieb:
> ...
>> I was more worried about painting ourselves now in a corner we cannot get
>> out of easily later.  Even if my answer to question "what are we going to
>> add" may be "nothing I can think of right now", it does not make me happy.
>
> If wrapping wasn't implemented as a nested function, nesting could still
> be introduced independently and used for other things -- once these
> other things arrive.

True.  I do not think we _need_ nested expansion; obviously we have lived
without it for a long time.

> I'm more in favour of adding ways to customize the shape of the elements
> rather than adding string functions.  %S(width=76,indent=4) over
> %[wrap(76,4)%s%].

Yeah, %X(some modifier) that can apply to any 'X' looks much simpler and
easier to look at.  The way the code is structured currently it might be
more work and risk to break things, though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]