Re: [PATCH 2/4] t1450: increase test coverage of in-tree d/f detection

René Scharfe [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

+check_duplicate_names () {
+	expect=$1 &&
+	shift &&
+	names=$@ &&

It doesn't really make sense to use $@ here since we're not using the
argument list behaviour of $@; we're just expanding it normally. I would
replace this with $* instead.

The assignment to $names flattens the list, so $@ and $* behave the same
here.
...
At least I'd like to keep the $@ as kind of a reminder that we want to
pass on arguments (full names), not words.

I personally prefer to use "$*" when we are not invoking the "list"
magic of "$@" and switch it to "$@" when it starts to matter, but I
can also understand your "reminder value" reasoning, so I am on the
fence.