Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > If I were doing it myself, I probably would have folded patches 1 and 3 > together. They are touching all the same spots, and it would be an error > for any case converted in patch 1 to not get converted in patch 3. I'm > assuming you caught them all due to Coccinelle, though IMHO it is > somewhat overkill here. By folding them together the compiler could tell > you which spots you missed. Yeah, that approach would probably be a more sensible way to assure the safety/correctness of the result to readers better. > > And going forward, I doubt it is going to be a common error for people > to use maybe_tree directly. Between the name and the warning comment, > you'd have to really try to shoot yourself in the foot with it. The > primary concern was catching people using the existing "tree" name, > whose semantics changed. Yup.
