Re: [PATCH v17 05/14] ref-filter: introduce match_atom_name()

Matthieu Moy [off-list ref] writes:

OTOH, you are now accepting %(atom:) as a synonym to %(atom), and it's
not clear whether this is a deliberate decition.

I would say so.  When the caller wants to reject %(atom:), the
caller can tell it by checking val[0] == '\0' and reject that.

So it is better if you did not do this:

	if (!body[1]) {
		/* "atom_name:" */
		*val = NULL;
		return 1;
	}

which robs that information from the caller.  It should be
sufficient to just drop the check that allows "colorx" when
expecting "color" without making any other change, I would think.