From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9631F670 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 17:35:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230505AbiCCRf4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:35:56 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35540 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229846AbiCCRfy (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:35:54 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24708B77 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 09:35:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id t187so852953pgb.1 for ; Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:35:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s0/0Rj+Jyrza3OAu9Zr3KfTZPh49/eACW3nuOdEKPBs=; b=TVEP/iWEH9CU1Bgvyo4oRME6E2+0/nG4oaHAKDwY/Ou5ZwBFzNe4P3/t183Hrr54f+ 1YjKSXhHnUZxOj9H6PYblHQ+2k0tHcik0TJXfcrWBuR4ZGlXuVBlqOuYTLXzALYPW6ee 61j86ViiLjTGjogw525yZqDLq4Oxf5BtOMrRTIPIUUDrheXdmUoZAiyL7M058JETplCY xR/+GEKAv7188q2/7bcnvKKwPF2yzDjF+574QHh4FAh6t3mIzgLiX1150ZQ2pnZvOvfa fejjIrlyTLbDqceylxL9D8bVCinJ804osSvMflP5A9oNmFcKTZA56IBh2ptiFUemYTG+ l71Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s0/0Rj+Jyrza3OAu9Zr3KfTZPh49/eACW3nuOdEKPBs=; b=XCSdF+DfyhVuS6oLF5V5HAnkFGMEq4bcnSVYHdRGSkl0Zvt7QqFV5DTV2Dd7mGsRR7 1on57jhzrr+B5CKFQC/w3bTz0oBLlzzSEaHeG4wBbDLBCkSJanJdPJs4Qt5RPNXoITZS CNsgfQvdS1ks7w+kOzmBhE2Xu2HhKbdx8MBLal+H4i8j4tFU03SNMSX/k1fyKSk0o57j KbAdLfGsg8tmbg70Q/LmwusX9S15pjxc8Hvb9cBK/V5yvkUr0jxWmyXj8ku8ckaq4a1x FY98Q+dKlL4q5vvq4awxKpzjUHHXHPksGR21EAeNdN2Nc38cwyEdKOVULoGGhqIoSSV3 WJWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531uu0ZuVYIPoqMUXETdW3kwEArHhsC2MFCiPQalhk0QXBs4bPp7 ObIBa8K7AiRPr4f2vzzV15I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGUwN43besny2F8sV3yMNQhsAIXbY2paitID4PVipVl5V45xFAJAoblpByqC3fBpBIxIdjKw== X-Received: by 2002:a65:56cb:0:b0:378:82ed:d74 with SMTP id w11-20020a6556cb000000b0037882ed0d74mr20283938pgs.491.1646328907372; Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:35:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2409:4061:2bc3:d84b:3104:479d:1deb:cf55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p10-20020a056a0026ca00b004f38e426e3csm3153231pfw.201.2022.03.03.09.35.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:35:06 -0800 (PST) From: Abhradeep Chakraborty To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty , =?UTF-8?q?=C3=86var=20Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0=20Bjarmason?= , Junio C Hamano , Eric Sunshine , git Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] parse-options.c: add style checks for usage-strings Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 23:04:56 +0530 Message-Id: <20220303173456.3773-1-chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.35.1 In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin wrote: > And since Abhradeep is a new contributor, I found it important to steer > the direction toward sound advice that they can use over and over again > over the course of their career: whenever possible, prefer static checks > over runtime ones. Thanks Johannes for the advice. I will always remember it ^^ > Of course, if we can convince Coccinelle (together with Python) to give us > the static check, we might very well be able to port more of > `parse_options_check()` from runtime checks to static ones, which would be > a clear win. > > If that is possible, we could save ourselves a lot of time by skipping (2) > altogether. > > And as I said, Julia's advice looked really good. If only I wasn't > desperately short on time, I would have given it a try because it sounds > not only fun but also very, very useful in Git's context. Since Junio and you both have an interest in Coccinelle, if you allow, I want to look into it. Thanks :)