From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:29:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Alternative approach to the git config NULL value checking patches..
Message-ID: <20080210232920.GH5129@artemis.madism.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v7ihce8ex.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:47:02PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > But as you seem to imply, it might make sense to equate
> >
> > 	[some-random-section]
> >         	some-random-variable
> >
> > to
> >
> > 	[some-random-section]
> >         	some-random-variable = ""
> >
> > for variables that cannot possibly have any meaningful "bool"
> > semantics.  This third class of variables is a possible benefit
> > your patch brings in.  The code can be lax for these variables.
> >
> > However, it would make things inconsistent ("this variable is
> > bool and the above two forms mean completely opposite things,
> > while that variable is not bool and they mean the same thing").
> > I am just having a hard time convincing myself that this little
> > detail does not matter.
> 
> Having said all that, it might be an option to change your patch
> slightly to say:
> 
> 	const char config_true[] = "true";

I was about to suggest the same, and testing against "config_true" just
becomes an optimization, but isn't required. Seems an appropriate hack
to me.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org