Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> > A truly libified function does not die() just for fun. >> >> The sentence is wasting bits. After all, a helper function in >> run-once-and-exit program does not die() just for fun, either. > > This sentence does not so much target *you* personally as audience, but > the occasional reader of the log who wonders: "Why don't we just call > die()? We would not have to worry about passing back the return value > through all those long call chains..." I was (and I am still) reacting mostly to "just for fun". > Even more natural is it to guess that the code will call error(), just > like we do almost everywhere else. > ... >> But that does not mesh very well with the stated objective of the >> patch. > ... > I could imagine that you wanted even more fine-grained control, where we > have a range of return values indicating different error conditions. I personally don't. I was pointing out the discrepancy between what the introduction says, i.e. "this way is way more flexible for the callers when they want to do their own error handling", and what the code actually does. If the explanation said "This series does not give the full flexibility potential callers may desire yet, but at least gives enough flexibility to do 'I do not want the called function to die, but append my own error message before I die myself'.", that is certainly an understandable stance to take, I would say. -- 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