On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> I should have mentioned the reason why I did not suggest doing
> it this way in my [Janitor] message.
>
> It is not "suttle difference between true and empty". Empty
> means false, and with this approach, it switches the meaning of
> valueless form of config to quite the opposite.
No it does not.
> will now need to be changed to:
>
> if (value == config_true)
> Ah we have true;
> else if (!*value)
> Ok this is false;
And that was done by my patch.
> still need to be fixed to:
>
> if (value == config_true)
> die("oops '%s' is not a bool", var);
> else if (!strcmp(value, "somevalue")
> Ok let's use somevalue;
And this is different from checking against NULL exactly how?
> > This also means that code (notably the value regexp parsing) that does
> > something like
> >
> > value ? value : ""
> >
> > just automatically can go away, and just use 'value' directly.
>
> Yes, but that's broken already, isn't it?
No, it was what the regex parsing logic was - empty matches empty. Whether
we really want it or not, I dunno.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
