Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > I don't think driving that with a two-entry table is the right thing > here. We are as likely to add another "foobar:" entry as we are to add > another modifier "/i" modifier to "gitdir:", and it is unclear whether > that modifier would be mutually exclusive with "/i".
OK, I didn't take /i as something that was meant as a modifier; I took the "gitdir:" and "gitdir/i:" are totally different tests that are spelled similarly, but for the implementation expediency, called into a single helper function without having a layer that presents the same function signature in the middle to make it drivable by a table. Let's leave it to the review of a future patch that wants to add a third condition then. At that time, we will have more things to look at to make a better decision.
