Re: [PATCH 3/3] subtree: adjust style to match CodingGuidelines

> Am 26.07.2016 um 06:14 schrieb David Aguilar:
>> @@ -50,87 +51,145 @@ prefix=
>>
>>  debug()
>>  {
>> -	if [ -n "$debug" ]; then
>> -		printf "%s\n" "$*" >&2
>> +	if test -n "$debug"
>> +	then
>> +		printf "%s\n" "$@" >&2
>
> Are you sure you want this? It prints each argument of the 'debug'
> invocation on its own line.
>
>>  	fi
>>  }
>>
>>  say()
>>  {
>> -	if [ -z "$quiet" ]; then
>> -		printf "%s\n" "$*" >&2
>> +	if test -z "$quiet"
>> +	then
>> +		printf "%s\n" "$@" >&2
>
> Same here.
>
>>  	fi
>>  }
>>
>>  progress()
>>  {
>> -	if [ -z "$quiet" ]; then
>> -		printf "%s\r" "$*" >&2
>> +	if test -z "$quiet"
>> +	then
>> +		printf "%s\r" "$@" >&2
>
> But here I'm pretty sure that this is not wanted; the original is
> clearly correct.
>
>>  	fi
>>  }
> ...
>> @@ -139,22 +198,27 @@ debug "command: {$command}"
>>  debug "quiet: {$quiet}"
>>  debug "revs: {$revs}"
>>  debug "dir: {$dir}"
>> -debug "opts: {$*}"
>> +debug "opts: {$@}"
>
> When the arguments of a script or function are to be printed for the
> user's entertainment/education, then it is safer (and, therefore,
> idiomatic) to use "$*".
>
>>  debug
> ...
>>  cache_get()
>>  {
>> -	for oldrev in $*; do
>> -		if [ -r "$cachedir/$oldrev" ]; then
>> +	for oldrev in "$@"
>> +	do
>
> It is idiomatic to write this as
>
> 	for oldrev
> 	do
>
> (But your move from bare $* to quoted "$@" fits better under the "fix
> quoting" topic of this patch.)
>
>> +		if test -r "$cachedir/$oldrev"
>> +		then
>>  			read newrev <"$cachedir/$oldrev"
>>  			echo $newrev
>>  		fi
> ...
>> @@ -631,17 +749,19 @@ cmd_split()
>>  		debug "  parents: $parents"
>>  		newparents=$(cache_get $parents)
>>  		debug "  newparents: $newparents"
>> -		
>> +
>>  		tree=$(subtree_for_commit $rev "$dir")
>>  		debug "  tree is: $tree"
>>
>>  		check_parents $parents
>> -		
>> +
>>  		# ugly.  is there no better way to tell if this is a subtree
>>  		# vs. a mainline commit?  Does it matter?
>> -		if [ -z $tree ]; then
>> +		if test -z $tree
>
> This works by accident. When $tree is empty, this reduces to 'test
> -z', which happens to evaluate to true, just what we want. But it be
> appropriate to put $tree in double-quotes nevertheless.
>
>> +		then
>>  			set_notree $rev
>> -			if [ -n "$newparents" ]; then
>> +			if test -n "$newparents"
>> +			then
>>  				cache_set $rev $rev
>>  			fi
>>  			continue
>
> -- Hannes