Hi,
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Olivier Marin wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> >
> > As the string comes either from the config (where it is trimmed), or
> > from the command line (where the user can be stup^W^Wask for
> > whitespace explicitely), I do not see much merit in this patch.
>
> You are right, today it is not a problem because the usage is really
> limited but Miklos's intention seems to make the function usable by
> everyone. As we do not know how it will be used in the future, I think
> it is safer with my patch.
I am generally not a fan of crossing bridges miles before you reach them.
But if you want to keep running with this, you should add at least a few
tests to show what you patch solves, and that it solves it. Preferably
with a "test_expect_failure" patch, and then a patch fixing it and
changing that _failure to _success.
Here's a starter:
-- snipsnap --
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index d3e339a..83a9a30 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1229,7 +1229,7 @@ endif
### Testing rules
-TEST_PROGRAMS = test-chmtime$X test-genrandom$X test-date$X test-delta$X test-sha1$X test-match-trees$X test-absolute-path$X test-parse-options$X test-strbuf$X
+TEST_PROGRAMS = test-chmtime$X test-genrandom$X test-date$X test-delta$X test-sha1$X test-match-trees$X test-absolute-path$X test-parse-options$X test-strbuf$X test-cmdline$X
all:: $(TEST_PROGRAMS)
diff --git a/test-cmdline.c b/test-cmdline.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f6d9eb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test-cmdline.c
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+#include "cache.h"
+
+int main(int argc, char **argv)
+{
+ int i = 0;
+ const char **new_argv;
+
+ if (argc < 2 || (argc = split_cmdline(argv[1], &new_argv)) < 0)
+ return 1;
+
+ while (i < argc)
+ printf("arg %d: '%s'\n", i++, *new_argv++);
+
+ return 0;
+}
