Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > A reader of this description doesn't have any reason to think that > `hasconfig:remote.*.url` wouldn't respect in-place semantics, so my > concern in [1] is addressed. > > `hasconfig:foo.*.bar` seems reasonable from a forwards-compatibility > perspective. Ideally, it would be nice to see a generic implementation > that actually handles config values beyond `remote.*.url`, but unless we > take a closer look at all config values and the conditions we would like > to support, a generic implementation seems like a premature > optimization that won't age well. > > So OK to having a forward-compatible name without a forward compatible > implementation. Thanks for taking a look at this. > Nit: I have a preference for Ævar's version [2], which looks more > consistent with the rest of the function i.e. handling the match using a > helper function. I agree - I'll use it.
