Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
> +# git-??????
Hmmmm...
> +&main();
> +
> +sub main ()
> +{
> + &Getopt::Long::Configure(qw(bundling pass_through));
> +
> + &GetOptions(
> + "all" => \$Show_all,
> + "no-color" => sub { %Color = (); },
> + "no-rebase" => sub { $Show_rebase = 0; },
> + "style=i" => \$Style,
> + "sha" => \$With_sha,
> + );
> + if ($Show_all) {
> + unshift(@ARGV, "--all", "HEAD");
> + }
> + &process();
> +}
This is a Perl script with a curious style. Your subroutines force the
"funny" parameter semantics to their callers by using prototypes, but
avoid the potential surprises and inconveniences prototypes may cause by
using the &name(...) form when they themselves make subroutine calls,
i.e. not eating their own dog food.
Is it fashionable to make text based tree render these days? How does
this compare with the git-graph in the nearby thread? Can they borrow
from each other?
--
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
