David Aguilar [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
@@ -44,19 +46,9 @@ valid_tool () {
}
setup_tool () {
- case "$1" in
- vim*|gvim*)
- tool=vim
- ;;
- *)
- tool="$1"
- ;;
- esac
This part was an eyesore every time I looked at mergetools scripts.
Good riddance.
Is there still other special case like this, or was this the last
one?
Thanks, both of you, for working on this.
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
David Aguilar [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
@@ -44,19 +46,9 @@ valid_tool () {
}
setup_tool () {
- case "$1" in
- vim*|gvim*)
- tool=vim
- ;;
- *)
- tool="$1"
- ;;
- esac
This part was an eyesore every time I looked at mergetools scripts.
Good riddance.
Is there still other special case like this, or was this the last
one?
Thanks, both of you, for working on this.
I believe that was the last special case. :-) It should be easier
to auto-generate a list of tools for use in the documentation now.
That'll be the the next topic I look into.
I have a question. John mentioned that we can replace the use of
"$(..)" with $(..) in shell.
I have a trivial style patches to replace "$(..)" with $(..)
sitting uncommitted in my tree for mergetool--lib.
Grepping the rest of the tree shows that there are many
occurrences of the "$(..)" idiom in the shell code.
Is this a general rule that should be in CodingStyle,
or is it better left as-is? Are there cases where DQ should
be used around $(..)? My understanding is "no", but I don't
know whether that is correct.
Doing the documentation stuff is more important IMO so I probably
shouldn't let myself get too distracted by it, though I am curious.
--
David