From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 18:01:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] t1450: increase test coverage of in-tree d/f detection
Message-ID: <xmqqwo55rwuq.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <1f982a11-358c-195d-21f4-0299f5b60ff2@web.de>

René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:

>>> +check_duplicate_names () {
>>> +	expect=$1 &&
>>> +	shift &&
>>> +	names=$@ &&
>>
>> It doesn't really make sense to use $@ here since we're not using the
>> argument list behaviour of $@; we're just expanding it normally. I would
>> replace this with $* instead.
>
> The assignment to $names flattens the list, so $@ and $* behave the same
> here.
> ...
> At least I'd like to keep the $@ as kind of a reminder that we want to
> pass on arguments (full names), not words.

I personally prefer to use "$*" when we are not invoking the "list"
magic of "$@" and switch it to "$@" when it starts to matter, but I
can also understand your "reminder value" reasoning, so I am on the
fence.