René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes:
>>> +check_duplicate_names () {
>>> + expect=$1 &&
>>> + shift &&
>>> + names=$@ &&
>>
>> It doesn't really make sense to use $@ here since we're not using the
>> argument list behaviour of $@; we're just expanding it normally. I would
>> replace this with $* instead.
>
> The assignment to $names flattens the list, so $@ and $* behave the same
> here.
> ...
> At least I'd like to keep the $@ as kind of a reminder that we want to
> pass on arguments (full names), not words.
I personally prefer to use "$*" when we are not invoking the "list"
magic of "$@" and switch it to "$@" when it starts to matter, but I
can also understand your "reminder value" reasoning, so I am on the
fence.
