On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 09:09:36AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > The recently introduced `strvec_splice()` API is expected to be > > normally used with non-empty strvec's. > > It is perfectly sensible to expect that you can splice your stuff > into an empty strvec, so all this sentence is saying is that a > strvec is more often non-empty than empty. I also wanted to introduce a reason why we might have overlooked making `strvec_splice()` aware of the singleton object, without using a verb like "forget". > Notice that I didn't have to invent a new > term "empty-singleton" at all ;-). :-D In my defense, I wrote the message late last night and was already tired. And when I read it today, it didn't seem so bad to me, in the context of the message. Thanks.
