Re: [PATCH v2] CodingGuidelines: explicitly allow "local" for test scripts

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Mon, May 03 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> 01d3a526 (t0000: check whether the shell supports the "local"
> keyword, 2017-10-26) raised a test balloon to see if those who build
> and test Git use a platform with a shell that lacks support for the
> "local" keyword.  After two years, 7f0b5908 (t0000: reword comments
> for "local" test, 2019-08-08) documented that "local" keyword, even
> though is outside POSIX, is allowed in our test scripts.
>
> Let's write it in the CodingGuidelines, too.  It might be tempting
> to allow it in scripted Porcelains (we have avoided getting them
> contaminiated by "local" so far), but they are on their way out and
> getting rewritten in C.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/CodingGuidelines | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
> index 45465bc0c9..ea70676a30 100644
> --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
> +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
> @@ -175,6 +175,11 @@ For shell scripts specifically (not exhaustive):
>  
>     does not have such a problem.
>  
> + - Even though "local" is not part of POSIX, we make heavy use of it
> +   in our test suite.  We do not use it in scripted Porcelains, and
> +   hopefully nobody starts using "local" before they are reimplemented
> +   in C ;-)
> +

Is there any portability reason to avoid "local" in the porcelains? I
don't have any plans for using it, but I don't see why we'd explicitly
forbid it.