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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D4E1F461 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 17:23:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387628AbfGQRXU (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:23:20 -0400 Received: from bsmtp7.bon.at ([213.33.87.19]:24368 "EHLO bsmtp7.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727260AbfGQRXT (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:23:19 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp7.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45pkcj1SlDz5tlJ; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:23:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BA61E78; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:23:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] range-diff: fix some 'hdr-check' and sparse warnings To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jeff King , Carlo Arenas , Ramsay Jones , Thomas Gummerer , GIT Mailing-list References: <41a60e60-d2c0-7d54-5456-e44d106548a4@kdbg.org> <20190714005129.GA4525@sigill.intra.peff.net> <54c2ee44-ee99-ea4a-3154-f642e0060877@kdbg.org> <20190715144602.GA26636@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4be7a0a1-0256-40c3-4abc-d3d9302f527b@kdbg.org> <20190715181527.GA30747@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:23:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 16.07.19 um 21:01 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > but as long as we declare that we take "{ 0 }" as a mere convention > [...], I am perfectly fine with it, and if it is hidden > behind a macro, that would be even better ;-) And I thought that "Avoid macros!" would be a welcome guideline... I think we enter subjective territory. Let's stop here. -- Hannes