On 10/24/2017 09:46 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:19:26PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/t/t1404-update-ref-errors.sh b/t/t1404-update-ref-errors.sh
>>> @@ -34,6 +34,86 @@ test_update_rejected () {
>>> +# Test adding and deleting D/F-conflicting references in a single
>>> +# transaction.
>>> +df_test() {
>>> + local prefix="$1"
>>> + shift
>>> + local pack=:
>>
>> Isn't "local" a Bash-ism we want to keep out of the test scripts?
>
> Yeah. It's supported by dash and many other shells, but we do try to
> avoid it[1]. I think in this case we could just drop it (but keep
> setting the "local foo" ones to empty with "foo=".
I do wish that we could allow "local", as it avoids a lot of headaches
and potential breakage. According to [1],
> However, every single POSIX-compliant shell I've tested implements the
> 'local' keyword, which lets you declare variables that won't be
> returned from the current function. So nowadays you can safely count
> on it working.
He mentions that ksh93 doesn't support "local", but that it differs from
POSIX in many other ways, too.
Perhaps we could slip in a couple of "local" as a compatibility test to
see if anybody complains, like we did with a couple of C features recently.
But I agree that this bug fix is not the correct occasion to change
policy on something like this, so I'll reroll without "local".
Michael
[1] http://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201102#28
