SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:18:20AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > +static void print_args(int argc, const char **argv)
>> > +{
>> > + for (int i = 0; i < argc; i++)
>> > + printf("arg %02d: %s\n", i, argv[i]);
>> > +}
>>
>> It is not November 2022 yet (cf. Documentation/CodingGuidelines).
>
> Oh, I've misunderstood Ævar's remarks about this in the previous
> round, and thought it's fair game.
If we make it a "fair game", when we find a platform that has
problems with the syntax, we will have to find them and fix up many
places. At least the number of the ones we let in by mistake are
small and known, it may be still be manageable.
It is how to be conservative.
> It doesn't matter for these tests, but 'test-tool parse-options' uses
> the same format to print args:
As long as 99 is enough for us, I do not very much care. I just
noticed an attempt to align that does not do a thorough job at it,
and found it strange, that's all.
