On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:48:22AM +1000, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> >> > The introduction of argc also makes it possible to invoke
> >> > check_ignore() with arguments which are not self-consistent.
> >>
> >> This is the same problem with main()
> >
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Adam Spiers wrote:
>> > The introduction of argc also makes it possible to invoke
>> > check_ignore() with arguments which are not self-consistent.
>>
>> This is the same problem with main()
>
> How could main() be invoked with argc inconsistent with argv?
The poi
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 09:09:33AM +1000, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> >> -static int check_ignore(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec)
> >> +static int check_ignore(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >> {
> >> struct dir_st
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Adam Spiers wrote:
>> -static int check_ignore(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec)
>> +static int check_ignore(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> {
>> struct dir_struct dir;
>> - const char *path, *full_path;
>> char *seen;
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 01:06:38PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> check-ignore (at least the test suite) seems to rely on the pattern
> order. PATHSPEC_KEEP_ORDER is introduced to explictly express this.
> The lack of PATHSPEC_MAXDEPTH_VALID is sufficient because it's the
> only flag that reo
check-ignore (at least the test suite) seems to rely on the pattern
order. PATHSPEC_KEEP_ORDER is introduced to explictly express this.
The lack of PATHSPEC_MAXDEPTH_VALID is sufficient because it's the
only flag that reorders pathspecs, but it's less obvious that way.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái N
6 matches
Mail list logo
