# [PATCH] send-email: squelch warning due to comparing undefined $_ to "" 2 messages from 2008-02-20 to 2008-02-20. Participants: Jay Soffian, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/12210 ## Jay Soffian, 2008-02-20 05:55 Subject: [PATCH] send-email: squelch warning due to comparing undefined $_ to "" Message-ID: <1203486907-12304-1-git-send-email-jaysoffian@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1203486907-12304-1-git-send-email-jaysoffian%40gmail.com ``` The check to see if initial_reply_to is defined was also comparing $_ to "" for a reason I cannot ascertain (looking at the commit which made the change didn't provide enlightenment), but if $_ is undefined, perl generates a warning. Signed-off-by: Jay Soffian --- Junio, the commit which introduced the change was yours, but I don't see why you were comparing $_ to "". http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git?a=commit;h=ace9c2a9dd7c9e54194998fc6b7c677dbb7d0902 git-send-email.perl | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl index 59601e3..ccb87a2 100755 --- a/git-send-email.perl +++ b/git-send-email.perl @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ if ($thread && !defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) { $initial_reply_to = $_; } -if (defined $initial_reply_to && $_ ne "") { +if (defined $initial_reply_to) { $initial_reply_to =~ s/^\s*?\s*$/>/; } -- 1.5.4.2.208.gfb302 ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2008-02-20 18:37 Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-email: squelch warning due to comparing undefined $_ to "" Message-ID: <7vmypv5v9y.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vmypv5v9y.fsf%40gitster.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <1203486907-12304-1-git-send-email-jaysoffian@gmail.com> ``` Jay Soffian writes: > The check to see if initial_reply_to is defined was also comparing $_ to > "" for a reason I cannot ascertain (looking at the commit which made the > change didn't provide enlightenment), but if $_ is undefined, perl > generates a warning. > > Signed-off-by: Jay Soffian > --- > Junio, the commit which introduced the change was yours, but I don't > see why you were comparing $_ to "". I think it was meant to check for $initial_reply_to being empty (i.e. not compare $_ but the variable), but even if that is the case I do not think the check would make a difference. So the patch looks good. Thanks. ```