Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> That was my general impression, too. But I seem to recall it was you in
> a nearby thread saying that:
>
> if (foo)
> bar();
> else {
> one();
> two();
> }
>
> was wrong. Maybe I misunderstood.
If it were a new code written like the above, that would have been
fine. If a new code written with both sides inside {}, that would
have been fine, too.
IIRC, it was that the original had {} on both, and a patch tried to
turn that into the above, triggering "why are we churning between
two acceptable forms?"
