Hi,
On Thu, 29 May 2008, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > 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.
Okay, I have to spell it out:
I think that the assert() here is not helpful at all, and that you should
rather do the "if () die()" thingie.
Ciao,
Dscho
--
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
