Re: [PATCH] jp: fix segfaults during parameter expansion

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 20,  3:47pm, Joey Pabalinas wrote:
} 
} Incorpated your changes, although I feel like the conditional operator is
} a better fit here (simpler and much more concise; making each possibility a
} lone function call is one of the few uses of `?:` where the intent is
} flat-out obvious).

There's no reason to do both of these changes.  You do the first one if
you like the "reference used with array" error message, or you do the
second one if you like the "not an identifier" message.  The second
one will never take the dupstring() branch if you have done the first.