Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
@@ -233,6 +228,8 @@ static char *prepare_index(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
if (*argv)
pathspec = get_pathspec(prefix, argv);
+ assert (!(interactive && pathspec && *pathspec));
As pathspec is specified indirectly by the user, I think an assert() here
is actively wrong.
But the program may still guarantee a condition by checking it
elsewhere. I don't need to teach you about that, do I? In particular,
the assert checks that this:
if (interactive && argc > 0)
die("Paths with --interactive does not make sense.");
... is equivalent to !pathspec || !*pathspec.
Paolo
--
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
