Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> +/* usage.c: if bug() is called we should have a BUG_if_bug() afterwards */ >> +extern int bug_called_must_BUG; > > I am not sure about the name, ... I finally figured out why I found this name so disturbing. This is written from the viewpoint of somebody who is trying to catch a programmer's error of calling bug() without calling BUG_if_bug(); it is not named to help the users of API to understand it better. I wonder if it makes sense to make the call to BUG_if_bug() totally optional. The rule becomes slightly different: * You can call bug() zero or more times. It issues a fatal error message, and internally remembers the fact that we detected a programming error that invalidates the execution of this program, without immediately terminating the program. * When you exit() from the program, the runtime consults that "did we call bug()?" record and makes the program exit with known exit code (we could arrange it to abort() just like BUG, but I'd prefer controlled crash). * But it is inconvenient to always keep going, after you may have called one or more bug(), to the normal program completion. So there is a helper exit_if_called_bug(), which is an equivalent to checking the "did we call bug()?" record and calling exit(). By making BUG_if_bug() optional, we can lose a handful of lines from the test helper, because it makes it a non-issue to exit the program without calling it. Hmm?
