Re: [PATCH] t7422: remove extraneous argument to printf

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Apr 9, 2025, 17:00 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cRe9BQw=U41uOprZ5JRNgNTC46zMpyGjNy9b=y-hA8-tA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPHxB8un1w-NBnfLne9d=vv9Sqa69eGoLhjOM0GcmhgkYKt-PA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 12:29 PM Subhaditya Nath <sn03.general@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 10:35 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > [...] for the sake of consistency and to match the author's original
> > intent, it may make more sense to retain the argument to printf and
> > instead employ `%d`.
>
> The problem is, there are multiple ways the printf statement could be
> written -
>
> 1) printf "[submodule \"sm-$i\"]\npath = recursive-submodule-path-$i\n"
> 2) printf "[submodule \"sm-$i\"]\npath = recursive-submodule-path-%d\n" "$i"
> 3) printf "[submodule \"sm-%d\"]\npath = recursive-submodule-path-$i\n" "$i"
> 4) printf "[submodule \"sm-%d\"]\npath = recursive-submodule-path-%d\n" "$i" "$i"
>
> Which one of these is to be used?

 The final (#4) seems most natural.