Hey Junio,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> +static int bisect_terms(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int argc)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (get_terms(terms)) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, _("no terms defined\n"));
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> + if (argc == 0) {
>> + printf(_("Your current terms are %s for the old state\nand "
>> + "%s for the new state.\n"), terms->term_good.buf,
>> + terms->term_bad.buf);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
>> + if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-good"))
>> + printf("%s\n", terms->term_good.buf);
>> + else if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-bad"))
>> + printf("%s\n", terms->term_bad.buf);
>> + else
>> + printf(_("invalid argument %s for 'git bisect "
>> + "terms'.\nSupported options are: "
>> + "--term-good|--term-old and "
>> + "--term-bad|--term-new."), argv[i]);
>> + }
>
> The original took only one and gave one answer (and errored out when
> the user asked for more), but this one loops. I can see either way
> is OK and do not think of a good reason to favor one over the other;
> unless there is a strong reason why you need this extended behaviour
> that allows users to ask multiple questions, I'd say we should keep
> the original behaviour.
True! I can just use return error() instead of printf. Also I noticed
that this is printing to stdout while the original printed it to
stderr. Thanks!
Regards,
Pranit Bauva
--
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