Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] git-prompt: make __git_eread intended use explicit
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 16:27:43 -0800
- From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] git-prompt: make __git_eread intended use explicit
Robert Abel <rabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Junio,
> On 04 Dec 2017 18:58, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Robert Abel <rabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> __git_eread is used to read a single line of a given file (if it exists)
>>> into a variable without the EOL. All six current users of __git_eread
>>> use it that way and don't expect multi-line content.
>> Changing $@ to $2 does not change whether this is about "multi-line"
>> or not.
> I'm aware of that. I was documenting current usage. The function is used
> to read file contents (which are expected to be a single line) into
> _a_ (i.e. single) variable.
> None of the current users of the function expect tokens to be split,
> which is why I removed it in preparation of patch 2/2, which would
> break tokenizing file contents.
I know all of the above, but I think you misunderstood the point I
wanted to raise, so let me try again. The thing is, none of what
you just wrote changes the fact that lack of callers that want to do
"multi-line" is IRRELEVANT. True, there is no caller that wants to
read multiple lines---it is a true statement, but it is irrelevant
statement. On the other hand, it is true and relevant that no
caller expects to split a line into multiple variables.
By changing "$@" to "$2" there, you would have broken callers that
wanted the helper function to read into multiple variables (if there
were such callers). Explaining the current usage that nobody does
so *IS* a valid justification for the change. It is relevant.
With or without that change, a caller that wanted to read multiple
lines from the file would never have worked. It was just doing a
single "read" built-in, so the only thing that would have been
worked on is the first line of the file. Your change wouldn't have
changed that---if a caller wanted to peek into the second line, your
change wouldn't have helped such a caller. And it is not like your
change would have broken such a caller that were happily reading the
second and subsequent line. The original wouldn't allowed it to
read the second line anyway.
Contrasting this with the above obsesrvation about possible breakage
for multi-variable callers (if there were such callers---luckily
there wasn't any), I hope that you can see why the lack of
"multi-line" caller in the existing usage is totally irrelevant when
analyzing this change and explaining why this is a good change.