Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> But as you seem to imply, it might make sense to equate
>
> [some-random-section]
> some-random-variable
>
> to
>
> [some-random-section]
> some-random-variable = ""
>
> for variables that cannot possibly have any meaningful "bool"
> semantics. This third class of variables is a possible benefit
> your patch brings in. The code can be lax for these variables.
>
> However, it would make things inconsistent ("this variable is
> bool and the above two forms mean completely opposite things,
> while that variable is not bool and they mean the same thing").
> I am just having a hard time convincing myself that this little
> detail does not matter.
Having said all that, it might be an option to change your patch
slightly to say:
const char config_true[] = "true";
IOW, make
[section]
var
equivalent to
[section]
var = "true"
Existing codepaths that deal with variables that were originally
bool but now bool + more might get upset if we did so, though.
An example I could think of offhand was "d7f4633 (Make AutoCRLF
ternary variable" but that one is safe.
-
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
