On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:47:02PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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";
I was about to suggest the same, and testing against "config_true" just
becomes an optimization, but isn't required. Seems an appropriate hack
to me.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgprHtxOPxA0U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
