[PATCH] dim: be explicit when iterating over $*
Jani Nikula
jani.nikula at linux.intel.com
Wed Oct 31 08:42:18 UTC 2018
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 07:22, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 03:22:48PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> >> From: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com>
>> >>
>> >> Currently one iterates over the function arguments implicitly, via
>> >> "for url; do ... done".
>> >>
>> >> Swap to using "for url in $*; do ... done", since it's tad clearer and
>> >> obvious for some of us (ahem me).
>> >>f
>> >> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com>
>> >
>> > Jani tends to have the useful opinions on bash style around here, I'll
>> > leave this up to him. I'm ok either way.
>>
>> The original gets the quoting and parameter expansion right. If you
>> think explicit is better, then it should be:
>>
>> for url in "$@"; do
>>
>> Even if this shouldn't matter for URLs, it matters for cargo-culting.
>>
> As you said, both $* and $@ will be the same here, so I've opted with
> the $* since it's already used within the funcitons.
$* is only used in error messages AFAICT.
>> I don't think the change is necessary, but since I tend to lean towards
>> fairly verbose bash style for readability, I can be persuaded otherwise.
>>
> Would a beer or two at FOSDEM be enough to convince you :-)
Heh, let's just keep beer and dim orthogonal, shall we? ;)
Make it "$@", change it everywhere (you missed one in
dim_commit_add_tag), and I'll take it. Good enough compromise?
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
More information about the dim-tools
mailing list