Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > But the intention is not to help correct callers! The purpose of mapping > `ERROR_SUCCESS` to 0 will help _only_ callers that try to report an error > when none happened. On Windows, which is the only platform where the > discussed function is compiled and used, `strerror(0)` has the > well-established behavior of returning "No error". But is the caller that ends up saying "No error" you mention below by calling strerror() exists *only* on Windows port somewhere in compat/ directory? If the call to strerror() is made from a codepath that is common to all platforms, then that caller *is* wrong to do so after seeing *no* errors. So, no, sorry, but I do not understand the above line of reasoning. > Now imagine that a user encounters a bug where a code path does indeed > incorrectly report an error where no error occurred (or where Git is > looking for the error too late or something like that). You probably agree > with me that we should really avoid reporting "Function not implemented" > in such a case and rather say "No error", which will help figure out the > bug much quicker. Not really. A BUG() that catches a call to this function that should not be called when there is no error would help identify the problematic caller a lot faster by being louder---those users who get hit will raise their hands more readily than those who see "No error" and wonders "why does Git give that error message when there is no error?". IOW, "No error" sounds like sweeping the issue under the rug. The argument could be "I do not want to be pressured to hunt for the problematic caller, and taking the approach to be less loud than the BUG() approach would allow the end users keep operating as if nothing bad happened, so that I can hunt for the caller iff/when I feel like it, and with no urgent need I can just ignore the hunt altogether. Not hitting with BUG() is a service to the end users who shouldn't be made a guinea pig---that is why we want to sweep the problematic caller under the rug. It may delay the discovery and fixing of problematic callers, which is a downside, though." I would understand such an argument, even if I might not think that such an argument makes the right tradeoff between not hitting the users with BUG() and not being effective in finding the problematic caller. Thanks.
