From: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:02:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] test-lib: refactor $GIT_SKIP_TESTS matching
Message-ID: <87sj1lbkvm.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vfvxl1rj9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> writes:
>
>> Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes:
>>
>>> Am 5/16/2013 22:50, schrieb Thomas Rast:
>>>> +match_pattern_list () {
>>>> +	arg="$1"
>>>> +	shift
>>>> +	test -z "$*" && return 1
>>>> +	for pat in $@
>>>
>>> You should have double-quotes around $@ here, but then you can just as
>>> well abbreviate to
>>>
>>> 	for pat
>>>
>>> and you don't need the 'test -z "$*' check anymore.
>>
>> Hmm, actually the quotes wouldn't help, because it currently reads
>>
>> -	for skp in $GIT_SKIP_TESTS
>> -	do
>> -		case $this_test.$test_count in
>> -		$skp)
>> -			to_skip=t
>> -			break
>> -		esac
>> -	done
[...]
>> But the 'for pat' with implicit $@ sounds nice regardless, thanks.
>
> 'for pat' is equivalent to 'for pat in "$@"', not 'for pat in $@';
> would it still be useful when you need them split at $IFS?

At this point the splitting has already happened in the caller when it
does the (refactored)

+	if match_pattern_list $this_test.$test_count $GIT_SKIP_TESTS

So $@ and "$@" is actually the same thing.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch