From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2022 05:19:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix syntax errors under clang 11.0.0 on MacOS
Message-ID: <xmqqr0zh8tg7.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <a8b83ff1-97b6-e2d2-91c7-ace597013368@web.de>

René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:

> Am 08.10.22 um 05:46 schrieb Eric Sunshine:
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 5:36 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> I do agree that one is dense, but aims for the same thing, and a bit
>>> more.  It might be easier to read if written in longhand, but ...
>>>
>>> ifeq ($(uname_s),Darwin)
>>> ifeq ($(filter clang12,$(COMPILER_FEATURES)),)
>>> DEVELOPER_CFLAGS += -Wno-missing-braces
>>> endif
>>> else
>>> ifeq ($(filter clang9,$(COMPILER_FEATURES)),)
>>> DEVELOPER_CFLAGS += -Wno-missing-braces
>>> endif
>>> endif
>>>
>>> ... we'd need to repeat ourselves, so...
>>
>> The repetition is a very minor downside. The big benefit of this
>> version is that it's easy to understand at-a-glance, unlike the
>> "dense" version with its high cognitive load.
>
> It's certainly easier.
>
> It triggers for any compiler that is not clang, though, which is
> a bit much.

Yeah, of course you are right.  In my "here is a translation to
human-language" I did explain what "clang1" was doing in your
version, but of course, I forgot all about it when writing the above
variant.