Re: [PATCH 2/5] t1404: document function test_update_rejected
- From
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
- Date
- Jun 9, 2016, 15:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <57598F2F.9050806@alum.mit.edu>
- In-Reply-To
- <5756FCF3.7050509@kdbg.org>
On 06/07/2016 06:57 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> Am 07.06.2016 um 13:50 schrieb Michael Haggerty:
>> test_update_rejected () {
>> + local prefix before pack create error &&
>
> Do we want to add more of unportable 'local' declarations?Sorry, I forgot that `local` is not in the POSIX standard.
According to [1] it's nevertheless very portable. Do you object to `local` based only on its absence from POSIX, or because it's known to cause problems in the real world? I ask because it is a convenient feature (and its lack is a common cause of mysterious errors), so it would be nice if we could allow its use.
Michael
[1] http://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201102#28