On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 02:10:11AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 07:36:42PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 01:34:21AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > > This should make the logic a bit easier to follow. It does mean > > > duplicating the buf cleanup for errors, but it's a single line. > > > > At least to my eyes, I actually prefer the state after 9/10 and would > > probably be OK to see this patch get dropped. I wish I had a compelling > > reason *why* I felt that way, but I think it may too subjective. > > > > I don't feel strongly about it either way, though. > > I also don't have a super strong feeling, though I fall on the other > side of the line (which is why I bothered sending the patch). > > If we didn't do that, I think the alternative is probably a comment > like: > > if (error1) > error(describe error1); > else if (error2) > error(describe error2); > else > return buf; > > /* if we didn't return above, we saw some error */ > free(buf); > return NULL; > > I dunno. I'd probably stick with what I send. ;) Fair enough ;-). Thanks, Taylor
