On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:48:22AM +1000, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org wrote:
The introduction of argc also makes it possible to invoke
check_ignore() with arguments which are not self-consistent.
This is the same problem with main()
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 09:09:33AM +1000, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org wrote:
-static int check_ignore(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec)
+static int check_ignore(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
{
struct
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org wrote:
The introduction of argc also makes it possible to invoke
check_ignore() with arguments which are not self-consistent.
This is the same problem with main()
How could main() be invoked with argc inconsistent with argv?
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 01:06:38PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
check-ignore (at least the test suite) seems to rely on the pattern
order. PATHSPEC_KEEP_ORDER is introduced to explictly express this.
The lack of PATHSPEC_MAXDEPTH_VALID is sufficient because it's the
only flag that
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Adam Spiers g...@adamspiers.org wrote:
-static int check_ignore(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec)
+static int check_ignore(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
{
struct dir_struct dir;
- const char *path, *full_path;
char
check-ignore (at least the test suite) seems to rely on the pattern
order. PATHSPEC_KEEP_ORDER is introduced to explictly express this.
The lack of PATHSPEC_MAXDEPTH_VALID is sufficient because it's the
only flag that reorders pathspecs, but it's less obvious that way.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái
6 matches
Mail list logo
