On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Matthieu Moy >> <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> + unsigned int nobracket = 0; >>>> + >>>> + if (!strcmp(valp, ",nobracket")) >>>> + nobracket = 1; >>> >>> The code to parse comma-separated values is different here and >>> elsewhere. I'd rather have the same code (possibly factored into a >>> helper function), both to get consistent behavior (you're not allowing >>> %(upstream:nobracket,track) for example, right?) and consistent code. >>> >> >> Speaking of comma-separated values, the only other place we use that is >> in the align atom. Also I find this very specific to get a function out of. >> Somehow I think this is the simplest way to go about this. > > Well, most pieces of code start with one instance, then two, then > more ;-). When the second instance starts being different from the > first, it doesn't give a good example for the future third instance. > Totally agree with you here. > This particular piece of code is so important and I won't fight for a > better factored one, but in general "there are only two instances" is a > dubious argument to avoid refactoring. > > Still, I find it weird to force the nobracket to be always at the same > position. > No i mean I could follow up with the way we use it in align, but I don't see how I can make a function out of this. -- Regards, Karthik Nayak -- 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