On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:57:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> We should still be hesitant against the practice to the same degree > >> that we are hesitant against struct assignment, especially when the > >> struct is of nontrivial size, or the struct has a pointer member > >> whose memory ownership semantics goes against shallow copying of the > >> struct. > > > > Good point. There are really two thresholds: is this something that > > should be totally forbidden, and is this something that is generally a > > good idea. I think the answers here are "no" and "yes" respectively. > > I agree with your conclusion but I found the above a bit confusing. > > Between "totally horrible, do not even think about it" (0%) and > "that is of course an excellent idea" (100%), you want to have two > points "might have some merit but not acceptable" (33%) and > something else that is less than "of course an excellent idea" but > still acceptable (66%)? I would not phrase the last threshold "is > generally a good idea", though. "It is not generally a good idea, > but in this case, it is an adequate solution", maybe. Sorry, yes, I flipped the boolean on the second one. I should have said "is it forbidden" and "is it generally a bad idea", in which case the answers are "no" and "yes". Or if you prefer, as I stated it, the answers to both are "no". ;) I.e., it is OK to use here but it is not something we should be doing all the time. Sorry for the confusion. -Peff
