On 19.12.14 16:22, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 03:39:30PM +0100, dev+git@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> By using printf instead of the echo/uniset sequence, the final structure
>> of the generated file becomes obvious.
>
> This whole series looks pretty sane to me, and the result is easier to
> read.
>
> I did wonder if a here-doc would be even easier than a PDF, like:
>
> cat >$UNICODEWIDTH_H <<-EOF
> static const struct interval zero_width[] = {
> $(uniset/uniset --32 cat:Me,Mn,Cf + U+1160..U+11FF - U+00AD | grep -v plane)
> };
> static const struct interval double_width[] = {
> $(uniset/uniset --32 eaw:F,W)
> };
> EOF
>
> The nice thing is that <<- will strip leading tabs, which means you can
> indent properly to match the surrounding code. I don't know if you find
> the in-line $() more readable or not, though.
I think the code looks much nicer with a here doc.
Checking in t/, it looks that there's no consensus about whether to
indent the content relative to the cat statement or not. What do you
suggest?
> I think either way it is an improvement over the current state.
Thanks!
Beat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature