Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mergetools: Simplify how we handle "vim" and "defaults"

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