Blah, my --in-reply-to didn't work so this didn't thread right.
On Thursday 2008 December 18 20:57:57 you wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > + do {
> > + switch (action) {
> > + case REVERT:
> > + warning("revert on a merge commit may not do what you expect.");
> > + continue;
> > + case CHERRY_PICK:
> > + /* Cherry picking a merge doesn't merge the history, but
> > + * I don't think many people expect that.
> > + */
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > + /* Unhandled enum member. */
> > + die("Unknown action on a merge commit.");
> > + } while (0);
> > +
>
> Wow. That must be one of the, uhm, less beautiful ways to write
>
> if (action == REVERT)
> warning("revert on a merge commit may not do what you "
> "expect.");
> else if (action != CHERRY_PICK)
> die("Unknown action on a merge commit.");
My way, a smart compiler will warn at compile time that there's a new enum
member that needs to be handled. Your way, no such compile-time warning will
be emitted. At runtime, they have the same behavior. Athestically, I agree
with you, but my way may have technical advantages.
I did check the CodingGuidelines and didn't see this construct mentioned.
> Besides, I am actually pretty much against this change.
I've never had a need to revert a merge commit, so it's not a big win either
way for me. I wrote the patch because alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx had the revert
behavior bite him and Linus suggested a warning might be apropos.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
