On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> Why do you need "err_buf", instead of directly writing the error to
>>> "err", especially if "err" is not optional?
>>>
>>>> + ...
>>>> +out:
>>>> + if (err_buf.len) {
>>
>> If we were directly writing to err, we would have checked
>> err.len here. Then you open up a subtle way of saying "dry run"
>> by giving a non empty error buffer.
>>
>> I contemplated doing that actually instead of splitting up into 2 functions,
>> but I considered that bad taste as it would require documentation.
>
> Sorry, but I do not understand this response at all.
Me neither. I think I elided the interesting part.
> I am still
> talking about keeping one function "compute_alternate_path()". The
> suggestion was just to drop "struct strbuf err_buf" local variable,
> and instead add the error messages the patch adds to err_buf with
> code like:
>
>> + if (!ref_git_s) {
>> + strbuf_addf(&err_buf, _("path '%s' does not exist"), path);
>> + goto out;
>
> to directly do
>
> strbuf_addf(err, _("path '%s' does not exist"), path);
done.
> err->len at "out:" label, or (2) using a new bool "seen_error = 0"
> and setting it to true when you diagnose an error. The latter would
> make the code a bit more verbose but I suspect the result would be
> easier to read than the former.
>
(2) is very readable, will reroll with that.
--
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