Isaac Good wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:16:41PM +0000, Cedric Staniewski wrote:
I hope your patch do not get lost in this thread.
Erm. Yeah, I hope so too. How does it get threaded?
I guess you hit the reply button instead of writing a new mail to pacman-dev. At least, there is the In-Reply-To header field in your mail header.
@@ -345,26 +345,26 @@ handle_deps() { local R_DEPS_SATISFIED=0 local R_DEPS_MISSING=1
- [ $# -eq 0 ] && return $R_DEPS_SATISFIED + (( $# == 0 )) && return $R_DEPS_SATISFIED
Is there a reason why you do not use (( ! $# )) here?
Some variables are used as a boolean flag in which case testing if ((VAR)) and if (( ! VAR )) reads well. The $# (and EUID) are used as integer values so it struck me as more understandable or readable in this form.
I am fine with that, but would it not makes sense to use (( $# > 0 )) instead of just (( $# )) then?
@@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ generate_checksums() {
local i=0; local indent='' - while [ $i -lt $((${#integ}+6)) ]; do + while [[ $i -lt $((${#integ}+6)) ]]; do indent="$indent " i=$(($i+1)) done What about "while (( $i < $((${#integ}+6)) )); do"?
I was planning a separate patch switching to a for loop. for (( i = 0; i < ${#integ} + 6; i++ ))
In this case, I would either get rid of -lt by converting to a for loop directly or not touch that line at all in this patch.
Should I implement these changes and resend this patch? /me goes looking for git help
If you like, but you could also wait for at least Allan's comment. You can use "git commit --amend" to alter your existing commit in git by the way.