From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Specify a precision for the length of a subject string Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:02:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20111223230228.GA1718@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20111220220754.GC21353@llunet.cs.wisc.edu> <20111221043843.GA20714@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20111221145112.GA13097@llunet.cs.wisc.edu> <20111223100957.GA1247@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20111223103511.GA10029@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v1urvc8fb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: nathan.panike@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Dec 24 00:02:37 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ReE8J-0003Av-5A for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:02:35 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757939Ab1LWXCb (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:02:31 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:51929 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757914Ab1LWXCa (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:02:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 4741 invoked by uid 107); 23 Dec 2011 23:09:15 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:09:15 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:02:28 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v1urvc8fb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:58:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Here's how I would have done it. Not involving %w at all, but applying > > equally to all placeholders. > > Hmm, just curious why you rejected the %w() approach, as enhancing %w > sounded to me like a better approach at the design level, but that was a > knee-jerk reaction without inspecting the codepaths involved myself hence > not knowing the potential amount of work required. Not so much rejecting as I took a quick look at how I would have done what your original patch did, and it was simple enough that I took it all the way to working and decided to post it. I left it up to you to decide whether using %w would be more sensible. I just wanted to present another alternative for discussion. -Peff