On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:32:26PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
>
> > That was my general impression, too. But I seem to recall it was you in
> > a nearby thread saying that:
> >
> > if (foo)
> > bar();
> > else {
> > one();
> > two();
> > }
> >
> > was wrong. Maybe I misunderstood.
>
> If it were a new code written like the above, that would have been
> fine. If a new code written with both sides inside {}, that would
> have been fine, too.
>
> IIRC, it was that the original had {} on both, and a patch tried to
> turn that into the above, triggering "why are we churning between
> two acceptable forms?"
Ah, OK. I didn't follow that discussion closely enough to realize that.
-Peff
