On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:15:49AM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:43:23AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > > @@ -1813,11 +1813,11 @@ static void check_object(struct object_entry *entry, uint32_t object_index)
> > > goto give_up;
> > > }
> > > if (reuse_delta && !entry->preferred_base) {
> > > - struct revindex_entry *revidx;
> > > - revidx = find_pack_revindex(p, ofs);
> > > - if (!revidx)
> > > + uint32_t pos;
> > > + if (offset_to_pack_pos(p, ofs, &pos) < 0)
> >
> > The current implementation does not return a positive value. Only
> > -1 on error and 0 on success. Is this "< 0" doing anything important?
> > Seems like it would be easiest to do
> >
> > if (offset_to_pack_pos(p, ofs, &pos))
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Either would work, of course. I tend to find the '< 0' form easier to
> read, but I may be in the minority there. For me, the negative return
> value makes clear that the function encountered an error.
I'll throw in my opinion that "< 0" to me much more clearly signals "did
an error occur". And that same form can be used consistently with
functions which _do_ have a positive return value on success, too. So I
prefer it for readability.
-Peff
