On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:46:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
quoted
Maybe you could introduce "test_seq" instead.
I don't have a strong preference, as there are only two callsites. Do
you want to make a patch?
If you run "for . in . . ." in t/, we see quite a many hits, so
"only two callsites" might be undercounting the candidates.
True. Although a good number of them are not numeric sequences (however
perl being perl, I think my one-liner would take "a" and "g" as
end-points just as readily).
I have no problem with converting them all. I just didn't want to
personally go to the work myself.
-Peff