On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com> > wrote: >> I also don't understand the meaning of this paragraph - if you mean that >> this patch teaches other callers to hardcode the sign, I don't see any such >> changes in the diff below. > > The last two hunks of the patch switch two callers that call with a sign > that is hard to reason about.
The last two hunks don't hardcode any signs, as far as I can see. They do pass in a "first" character that may or may not be a sign, if that is what you mean. In any case, can you reword that paragraph into an imperative statement (e.g. "teach X to...", "make X...")? >>> + char term[2]; >>> + term[0] = options->line_termination; >>> + term[1] = '\0'; >>> + >>> + emit_line(options, NULL, NULL, >>> + term, 1); >> >> >> If options->line_termination is 0, this is actually a zero-length string >> (not 1). > > So passing in !!options->line_termination should be fine? Yes, that would work. I slightly prefer !!term[0].
