Judit Novak

@justinmk Thanks for noticing my contribution here :-) May I ask, what does the "needs:response" label stand for? I couldn't find a question (this PR, referred issue, etc.) but I...

@justinmk Thanks very much for the review. I had a question while working on this code. Isn't it an "overkill" to add the amount of (sensitive) changes to fix an...

@justinmk Thank you very much for additional suggestions and most importantly the confirmation of the value of this work. I'm very glad it's useful :-) Also thanks for the foreseen...

Simple changes are applied, pipelines are :green_circle: :tada: Making an attempt for `os_getenv_noalloc` in an upcoming commit.

@zeertzjq Thanks for your response. `os_env_exists` uses cool trick :-) But I'm a bit confused, how to benefit from a similar approach here. Would you suggest to use `uv_os_getenv()` to...

I see your point, but I can't map that usage to the case in question. The actual value of `NVIM_APPNAME` seems to be used in all cases (potentially slightly transformed)....

@zeertzjq Thanks for the clarification, now your message is clear. (The context was confusing, I thought the suggestion was targeting [this issue](https://github.com/neovim/neovim/pull/32683#discussion_r1989856185).) The existence check only appears on a few...

In order to keep individually fully functional stages separate, I've left this PR as a fully "polished" version of `os_getenv()` usage on each occasion. I'm introducting the code with `os_env_defined()`...

Added changes from [PR II.](https://github.com/juditnovak/neovim/pull/1), including fixes for comments: - @zeertzjq: - https://github.com/juditnovak/neovim/pull/1#discussion_r1996402380 - https://github.com/juditnovak/neovim/pull/1#discussion_r1996402865 - @justinmk: - https://github.com/juditnovak/neovim/pull/1#discussion_r1996825716

NOTE: All commits will be squashed into the first commit (that has the correct, linted structure) once the review process is over. Until then lintcommit pipeline errors could be ignored.