> On 20 Nov 2017, at 01:11, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> However, it's not clear how much benefit you gain from stashing this >>>> away in a static variable. Premature optimization? >>> >>> The variable being "static" could be (but it was done primarily >>> because it allowed me not to worry about freeing), > > The current code happens to be safe because I do not allocate. I do > not know what others will do to the code in the future, and at that > point, instinct kicks in to futureproof against the worst ;-). > >>>> Should printing of close_notice be done before the error()? Otherwise, >>>> you get this: >>>> >>>> --- 8< --- >>>> Launched your editor (...) ...There was a problem... >>>> --- 8< --- >>> >>> In my version with a far shorter message, I deliberately chose not >>> to clear the notice. We ran the editor, and we saw a problem. That >>> is what happened and that is what will be left on the terminal. >>> >> >> It might be a good thing to keep the notice but I think it would be >> better to have that error message in a "new line". I'm not sure if >> it's possible or not. > > Of course it is possible, if you really wanted to. The code knows > if it gave the "we launched and waiting for you" notice, so it can > maintain not just one (i.e. "how I close the notice?") but another > one (i.e. "how I do so upon an error?") and use it in the error > codepath. I think a newline makes sense. I'll look into this for v3. Thanks, Lars
