Re: Possible bug in includeIf / conditional includes

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: May 11, 2017, 07:56 UTC
Message-ID: <20170511075624.572rujfaedzihpn4@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbmqzbzh0.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:54:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 09:19:50AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >
> >> 1. It says "The included file is expanded immediately, as if its
> >> contents had been found at the location of the include directive.". At
> >> first I thought this referred to glob expansion, not
> >> s/expanded/interpolated/, the example section uses "expand" in the
> >> context of pathnames, which caused the confusion.
> >
> > Perhaps it should say "The contents of the included file are expanded
> > immediately, as if they had been found at..."?
> 
> Or s/expanded/inserted/, perhaps?  The word "expand" does not quite
> click to me in this context.  Just like Ævar, I associate the word
> with an act of replacing some template-with-blank with the result of
> blanks-in-the-template-filled.

Yeah, that is much better. I think "expand" here originally meant "read the contents of", but when we talk about the contents already there is nothing left to expand.

I agree "inserted" is probably the right word (or even just "read" or "parsed" or something).

-Peff