Jean-Noël Avila <avila.jn@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> + /* Dry run won't remove anything, so requiring force makes no sense */
>> + if(dry_run)
>> + require_force = 0;
Style. "if (dry_run)".
Getting rid of "config_set", which was an extra variable that kept
track of where "force" came from, does make the logic cleaner, I
guess. What we want to happen is that one of -i/-n/-f is required
when clean.requireForce is *not* unset (i.e. 0 <= require_force).
>> + if (!force && !interactive) {
The require-force takes effect only when neither force or
interactive is given, so the new code structure puts the above
obvious conditional around "do we complain due to requireForce?"
logic. Sensible.
>> + if (require_force > 0)
>> + die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> + "refusing to clean"));
If it is explicitly set, we get this message. And ...
>> + else if (require_force < 0)
>> + die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> "refusing to clean"));
... if it is set due to default (in other words, if it is not unset), we
get this message.
As you said, I do not think it matters too much either way to the
end-users where the truth setting of clean.requireForce came from,
either due to the default or the user explicitly configuring. So
unifying to a single message may be helpful to both readers and
translators.
clean.requireForce is true; unless interactive, -f is required
might be a bit shorter and more to the point.
> The last two cases can be coalesced into a single case (the last one),
> because the difference in the messages does not bring more information
> to the user.
Yeah.
Thanks.
