On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 07:22, Jani Nikula <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 03:22:48PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> From: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Currently one iterates over the function arguments implicitly, via >> >> "for url; do ... done". >> >> >> >> Swap to using "for url in $*; do ... done", since it's tad clearer and >> >> obvious for some of us (ahem me). >> >>f >> >> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> >> > >> > Jani tends to have the useful opinions on bash style around here, I'll >> > leave this up to him. I'm ok either way. >> >> The original gets the quoting and parameter expansion right. If you >> think explicit is better, then it should be: >> >> for url in "$@"; 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 _______________________________________________ dim-tools mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dim-tools
