René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes: > Am 08.10.22 um 05:46 schrieb Eric Sunshine: >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 5:36 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I do agree that one is dense, but aims for the same thing, and a bit >>> more. It might be easier to read if written in longhand, but ... >>> >>> ifeq ($(uname_s),Darwin) >>> ifeq ($(filter clang12,$(COMPILER_FEATURES)),) >>> DEVELOPER_CFLAGS += -Wno-missing-braces >>> endif >>> else >>> ifeq ($(filter clang9,$(COMPILER_FEATURES)),) >>> DEVELOPER_CFLAGS += -Wno-missing-braces >>> endif >>> endif >>> >>> ... we'd need to repeat ourselves, so... >> >> The repetition is a very minor downside. The big benefit of this >> version is that it's easy to understand at-a-glance, unlike the >> "dense" version with its high cognitive load. > > It's certainly easier. > > It triggers for any compiler that is not clang, though, which is > a bit much. Yeah, of course you are right. In my "here is a translation to human-language" I did explain what "clang1" was doing in your version, but of course, I forgot all about it when writing the above variant.
