Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>>> + } else if (skip_prefix(name, "align", &valp)) {
>>>
>>> This looked as if you are willing to take %(align) in addition to
>>> %(align:...), but...
>>>
>>>> + struct align *align = &v->align;
>>>> + struct strbuf **s;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (valp[0] != ':')
>>>> + die(_("format: usage %%(align:<width>,<position>)"));
>>>
>>> ... apparently that is not what is happening. Why not skip "align:"
>>> with colon as the prefix, then?
>>
>> Cause we wanted to provide an error for usage of "%(ailgn)" without any
>> subvalues as such.
>
> Wouldn't it be something that would be caught in the same codepath
> as what catches %(unrecognized) in the format string?
After thinking about it, I agree with Karthik: if we get the same
codepath to complain about %(nosuchatom) and %(align), then we won't be
able to provide an accurate error message. Or we would need to re-parse
the atom, notice that it's one we know about, i.e. redo what we're
already doing here.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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