On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
<eantoranz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
> <eantoranz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hmmmm.... if the code in assign_blame changed to this, it would be
> possible to allow the -1 to go through:
>
> if (show_progress > 0)
> pi.progress = start_progress_delay(_("Blaming lines"),
> sb->num_lines, 50, 1);
>
> But then I think it would be more 'concise' if we had the value set to
> 0/1 instead of expecting to see a possible value of -1 there (or
> anywhere else) after progressing if progress will be shown or not in
> the piece of code we are chatting about.
The name "show_progress" does read like a boolean rather than a
tristate, so making sure its value is 0 or 1 after option processing
(as your current patch does) is probably the best way to go. I don't
otherwise feel strongly about it.
--
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