On 13 Oct 2016, at 10:13, Gregory Szorc <gregory.sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Martijn Pieters <m...@zopatista.com 
> <mailto:m...@zopatista.com>> wrote:
> > Nice refactor. While I haven't looked at the code in detail yet, does 
> > check-code not complain about the use of underscore_function_names?
> Apparently not! I did run the whole test suite, and ran it again just now. 
> Nested function names are locals and exempt from the rule it appears.
> Should I resend with adjusted function names?
> Unless I'm missing something obvious, you should.

Done (bound together with the smaller follow-up patch that I sent as a 2-patch 
series this time).


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Mercurial-devel mailing list

Reply via email to