On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:25:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Perhaps, but except for the use of nonstandard try...catch. I have been > wondering if we can move away from it, with the goal of eventually getting > rid of the construct altogether. It's consistent with the rest of the code; we may want to remove it, but we should either do it everywhere or not at all and I think it's an issue independent on this patch. > Didn't we hear from Randal that the construct is known to be leaky? I agree that in hindsight, using this construct was probably not the best idea, and I'm in principle not against removing it as long as there is no functionality lost - the ability to let the program just fail if I don't care in my code, or catch specifically for nonzero exit codes and let the program fail in other cases, is very useful and I do use it in some of my code; I would hate to lose this flexibility. If there is an alternative (perhaps even slightly more clumsy) way to solve this, I have no problem with switching over; however, I don't have much time or interest to research this myself. If Lea wants to figure something out, she (*) is welcome as far as I'm concerned. (*) Lea, I hope I figured this out right - sorry if not. :-) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. -- J. W. von Goethe -- 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
