Jrg Sommer <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Shawn O. Pearce schrieb am Sun 20. Apr, 20:26 (-0400):
> > Jrg Sommer <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +static inline int parse_mark(const const char *str, uintmax_t* mark,
>
> Is inline okay?
Yea, inline is fine. We use "static inline" often in Git when it
is a good idea.
> > > static void cmd_mark(void)
> > > {
> > > - if (!prefixcmp(command_buf.buf, "mark :")) {
> > > - next_mark = strtoumax(command_buf.buf + 6, NULL, 10);
> > > + uintmax_t mark = 0;
> > > + char *after_mark = NULL;
> > > +
> > > + if (!prefixcmp(command_buf.buf, "mark ") &&
> > > + parse_mark(&command_buf.buf[5], &mark, &after_mark) &&
> >
> > Hmm. Shouldn't this be ! parse_mark given that it returns 0
> > on success and 1 on failure?
>
> Yes, you're right. I've checked some other functions and found this
> behaviour. Can I use a different behabiour, i.e. return 0 on failure and
> !0 on success?
I wasn't objected to the return values as written, but more to the
fact that it seemed like a logic error to me. We use both patterns
in Git. Perhaps the best example to follow is get_sha1_hex();
it returns -1 on error and 0 on success. So a common pattern is
"!get_sha1_hex()" to ensure a successful conversion of a hex string
to an unsigned char array.
--
Shawn.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
