Hi, Taylor Blau wrote:
> Peff points out that different atom parsers handle the empty > "sub-argument" list differently. An example of this is the format > "%(refname:)". > > Since callers often use `string_list_split` (which splits the empty > string with any delimiter as a 1-ary string_list containing the empty > string), this makes handling empty sub-argument strings non-ergonomic. > > Let's fix this by assuming that atom parser implementations don't care > about distinguishing between the empty string "%(refname:)" and no > sub-arguments "%(refname)". > > Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <m...@ttaylorr.com> > --- > ref-filter.c | 10 +++++++++- > t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh | 1 + > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) The above does a nice job of explaining - what this change is going to do - how it's good for the internal code structure / maintainability What it doesn't tell me about is why the user-facing effect won't cause problems. Is there no atom where %(atom:) was previously accepted and did something meaningful that this may break? Looking at the manpage and code, I don't see any, so for what it's worth, this is Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> but for next time, please remember to discuss regression risk in the commit message, too. Thanks, Jonathan
