Re: [PATCH 1/4] completion: add missing terminator in case statement

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 22, 2014, 20:18 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqvbqpf8qd.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140722182207.GC26927@serenity.lan>

John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:09:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> 
>> > John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:
>> >
>> >> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
>> >> ---
>> >
>> > As these ;; are separators not terminators, this is not strictly
>> > necessary.  Squashing it into a change that adds more case arms to
>> > this case statement is of course not just good but necessary,
>> > though.
>> 
>> s/necessary/may be &/; if you add new arms before this one, you
>> won't need it.  But if you add one after this, you would ;-).
>
> Hmm... POSIX describes them as terminators :-)
>
> 	The compound-list for each list of patterns, with the possible
> 	exception of the last, shall be terminated with ";;".

A terminator that is optional at the end is a separator ;-).

Having ';;' immediately before 'esac' is not wrong, but omitting it is exactly equally correct as having one, so it is not something we would want a patch to churn.

> I'll drop this patch in the re-roll since it isn't necessary.

This round looked good from a cursory read, except that the first one still makes me wonder why you chose to put it there _before_ where we handle --repo, where the corresponding case on "$cur" handles --repo= first and then --recurse-submodules= next.

Wouldn't the end result easier to follow if you stuck to the same order?