On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Jody Bruchon <j...@jodybruchon.com> wrote: > I agree. There is no good reason for doing this at all. It looks like someone > has intentionally obfuscated the code. If it's for throwing an error on > invalid configurations, other constructs exist that are much more clear and > are better supported.
What construct do you propose? _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
