Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:31:38PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> If this goes on top as a standalone patch, then the reason why it is >> separate from the other users of _default() is not because the way >> it uses the null return is special, but because it was written by a >> different author, I would think. > > Mostly I was just concerned that we missed a somewhat subtle bug in the > first conversion, and I think it's worth calling out in the commit > message why that callsite must be converted in a particular way. Whether > that happens in a separate commit or squashed, I don't care too much. > > But I dunno. Maybe it is obvious now that the correct code is in there. > ;) It probably is too obvious to me only because the use case like this one that wanted to treat --foo and --foo="" differently was the only reason why I pushed against Christian's original one that hardcoded the equivalence without allowing what the _default() variant lets us do, I think.
