Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > But if it is the case, I'd step back a bit and further question if > "else if" is a good construct to use here. We'd return if .m passes > midx_contains_pack() check, and another check based on .to_include > gives us an orthogonal chance to return early, so two "if" statement > that are independent sitting next to each other may have avoided > such a bug from the beginning, perhaps? OK, I went back and checked your response to a review in an earlier round. If .m and .to_include cannot be turned on at the same time, then I think "else if" would express the intention more clearly. But if we go that route, the whole "if ... else if" may deserve a comment that explains why .m and .to_include are fundamentally and inherently mutually exclusive. In other words, is it possible if future enhancement may want to pass both .m and .to_include to allow the code path to check both conditions and return early? Thanks.
