[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: syntax-check improvements

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: syntax-check improvements
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 19:05:11 +0200

On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Assaf Gordon <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello,

Hi Assaf,
Thanks again for all of your work.
I spotted two nits:

> Attached few patches incorporating more syntax-checks from coreutils:
> * 56e70bc maint: syntax-check: prohibit-operator-at-eol

Here, please do not use a backslash on the line that used to end with
e.g., "&&". Backslashes like that are required only in e.g., macro
definitions and continued strings.

> * 07e2d26 maint: syntax-check: fail-0 and fail-1 in shell script tests
> * 7816598 maint: syntax-check: add various test-related checks
> * 17f3765 maint: syntax-check: add sc_prohibit_strncmp
> * 5e7b561 maint: syntax-check: add sc_gitignore_missing
> * 68b7209 maint: syntax-check: prohibit-form-feed
> * e5ec161 maint: syntax-check: space-before-open-paren

This patch appears to add a spurious blank line:

+++ b/
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ manual_title = GNU Sed: a stream editor
 # it can take a while for the faster mirror links to become usable.
 url_dir_list =$(PACKAGE)

 # Tests not to run as part of "make distcheck".

> * ae30bdc maint: syntax-check improvements

Everything else looks fine.
I especially appreciate the space-before-open-paren one. It was
irritating to have to choose between consistency with existing bad
practice and standards used everywhere else in GNU code.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]