I don't disagree with what Junio is saying. It is somewhat duplicate that the user has to pass both a code and a message in the current form-- it should be sufficient for them to pass the code, and the message can then e.g. be extracted from a central array that maps codes to messages. But you can also make the reverse argument: messages can be dynamic, so that the caller may include additional details around why specfically the check failed. The code and message would still be 1:1, but we may include additional details like that to guide the user. Patrick
