On Fri, Aug 19 2022, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
Nit: I wouldn't mind keeping this variable:
> };
> - int result;
>
> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, builtin_bundle_usage,
> - PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION);
> + 0);
>
> packet_trace_identity("bundle");
>
> - if (argc < 2)
> - usage_with_options(builtin_bundle_usage, options);
> -
> - else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "create"))
> - result = cmd_bundle_create(argc, argv, prefix);
> - else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "verify"))
> - result = cmd_bundle_verify(argc, argv, prefix);
> - else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "list-heads"))
> - result = cmd_bundle_list_heads(argc, argv, prefix);
> - else if (!strcmp(argv[0], "unbundle"))
> - result = cmd_bundle_unbundle(argc, argv, prefix);
> - else {
> - error(_("Unknown subcommand: %s"), argv[0]);
> - usage_with_options(builtin_bundle_usage, options);
> - }
Then just doing:
result = fn(argc, argv, prefix);
Which would eliminate the need to change this:
> - return result ? 1 : 0;
> + return !!fn(argc, argv, prefix);
> }
I wondered about why !! v.s. 0/1 for a second or so, but realized you
were just golf-ing an existing pattern.
FWIW I *think* if we're changing this we could just make it "return
fn()", as the functions themselves seem to return 0/1 or a !!'d
variable.
