On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:12:58AM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > I know this is getting _really_ subjective, but IMHO this is a lot more
> > reasoning than the comment needs. The commit message goes into the
> > details of the "why", but here I'd have just written something like:
> >
> > /*
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 02:43:35AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 10:53:11PM -0700, 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
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 10:53:11PM -0700, 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
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
4 matches
Mail list logo
