Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:11:46PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: >> >> > if (c != '.' && >> > - is_date(num3, num, num2, refuse_future, now, tm)) >> > + is_date(num3, num, num2, refuse_future, now, tm, 0)) >> > break; >> >> Doesn't the new argument '0', which is "allow-future", look somewhat >> strange when we are already passing refuse_future? > > To be honest, I had trouble figuring out what the name "refuse_future" > really meant. We do skip the future check, but it also means that > is_date will munge the "struct tm" directly, even if we do not find a > valid date. That worried me a bit.
Ah, OK. That worries me, too, now you mention it. I just didn't see it myself ;-) > > But yeah, in theory, the callers I wanted to tweak can just pass in a > NULL refuse_future. > > -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
