From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:18:17 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] completion: add missing terminator in case statement Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20140722182207.GC26927@serenity.lan> John Keeping writes: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:09:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >> > John Keeping writes: >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: John Keeping >> >> --- >> > >> > 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?