Paolo Bonzini, Thu, May 29, 2008 16:40:57 +0200:
>>>>> + 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.
>
> The "if() die ()" thingie is already in builtin-commit.c, so we won't
> ever get a pathspec in the "add --interactive" case. If we do,
> something else has already been done incorrectly before -- not by the
> user but by the programmer.
What could that be?
--
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
