From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:27:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/17] ref-filter: implement %(if:equals=<string>) and %(if:notequals=<string>)
Message-ID: <CA+P7+xomLnpgM65W0TCUgO_n6XUu05jKkmQKgbUS9XxJu_46RQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZQCP2KtgLQie5p+PBiFjiNVFduUh=AmuLWcOKX5QA_BXA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ok. How does this handle whitespace? The previous if implementation
>> treated whitespace as trimming to ignore. Does this require an exact
>> whitespace match? It appears by the code that strings must match
>> exactly. Would it make more sense to always trim the value of
>> whitespace first before comparison? Hmm.. I think we should avoid
>> doing that actually.
>>
>
> This does not trim whitespace what so ever and requires an exact match.
> I don't see the reason behind trimming whitespace though.
>

The comment was made in reference to the fact that %(if)<atom>%(then)
essentially trims whitespace, since if the <atom> prints only
whitespace it does not match.

Thus, it might make sense to keep it all the same and have this trim
as well. However, I think there is no benefit or reasoning to do so in
this case.

Thanks,
Jake