Re: [PATCH v17 05/14] ref-filter: introduce match_atom_name()

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

 



Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> It is one thing that the user can actually do the check themselves,
> but doesn't it make more sense that when we're using colon we expect a
> value after it, and something like %(color:) makes no sense when color
> specifically needs a value after the colon.

If you imagine the format being built by scripts (we are talking
about plumbing feature --format here), I think you will realize that
it perfectly makes sense to allow them to say "%(atom:$modifiation)"
without having to worry about a special case where $modification
happened to end up being empty.  So no, I do not agree with your
statement at all.
--
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]