Eric Sunshine <[email protected]> writes:
>> +if ! test_have_prereq MINGW && touch -- 'tab embedded' 'newline
>> [...]
>> +test_have_prereq !MINGW &&
>
> Where negation is concerned, is there a non-obvious reason that this
> patch sometimes says:
>
> ! test_have_prereq MINGW
>
> and sometimes:
>
> test_have_prereq !MINGW
>
> ? Is one form preferred over the other?
The latter may be preferrable as it can be extended more easily,
e.g.
test_have_prereq !MINGW,SANITY
without having to cascade "&& test_have_prereq ANOTHER_PREREQ" in a
verbose way.
It is a minor thing that is not worth bothering to "fix" from one to
the other style once it is committed to my tree, but it may be worth
sticking to one style in new code.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
