Le 15 juin 2010 15:28, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> Diane Gasselin <diane.gasselin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> In display_error_msgs(), I cannot access o->msg because I would not
>> know which error I am treating.
>
> You do:
>
> static void display_error_msgs(struct unpack_trees_options *o)
> {
> ...
> for (i = 0; i < NB_UNPACK_TREES_ERROR; i++) {
> ...
> }
>
> You know "i", so you know which error it is. The difficulty is that
> the rejected paths are in an array, while the error messages are in a
> struct, but you can either:
>
> * Turn the struct into an array, and say msgs[would_overwrite] instead
> of msgs.would_overwrite (which would also simplify the code
> elsewhere since you would be able to write "ERRORMSG(o, error)" and
> such things).
>
> * Do
>
> switch (i) {
> case would_overwrite:
> msg = o->msg.would_overwrite;
> break;
> case not_uptodate_file:
> msg = o->msg.not_uptodate_file;
> break;
> case not_uptodate_dir:
> msg = o->msg.not_uptodate_dir;
> break;
> case would_lose_untracked_overwritten:
> msg = o->msg.would_lose_untracked_overwritten;
> break;
> case would_lose_untracked_removed:
> msg = o->msg.would_lose_untracked_removed;
> break;
> case sparse_not_uptodate_file:
> msg = o->msg.sparse_not_uptodate_file;
> break;
> }
>
> --
> Matthieu Moy
> http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
>
Thanks for your answers.
I did the switch case at first but thought it was maybe a bit
repetitive. That is why, I opted for giving directly the message in
add_rejected_path().
Otherwise, I do agree an array would make things easier, especially
for my patch. Does anyone has an objection into changing the struct
unpack_trees_error_msgs into an array?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html