Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] completion: add missing terminator in case statement

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:18:17 -0700

John Keeping <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:09:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:
>> 
>> > John Keeping <[email-masked]> writes:
>> >
>> >> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <[email-masked]>
>> >> ---
>> >
>> > As these ;; are separators not terminators, this is not strictly
>> > necessary.  Squashing it into a change that adds more case arms to
>> > this case statement is of course not just good but necessary,
>> > though.
>> 
>> s/necessary/may be &/; if you add new arms before this one, you
>> won't need it.  But if you add one after this, you would ;-).
>
> Hmm... POSIX describes them as terminators :-)
>
> 	The compound-list for each list of patterns, with the possible
> 	exception of the last, shall be terminated with ";;".

A terminator that is optional at the end is a separator ;-).

Having ';;' immediately before 'esac' is not wrong, but omitting it
is exactly equally correct as having one, so it is not something we
would want a patch to churn.

> I'll drop this patch in the re-roll since it isn't necessary.

This round looked good from a cursory read, except that the first
one still makes me wonder why you chose to put it there _before_
where we handle --repo, where the corresponding case on "$cur"
handles --repo= first and then --recurse-submodules= next.

Wouldn't the end result easier to follow if you stuck to the same
order?