Jeff Trawick wrote:
> You misunderstood my comment (possibly because I didn't write it
> clearly). What I meant by
>
> "Why not simply zap all these checks of the form
>
> if (silly user specified no-argument option again) {
> remind them who is boss
> }
>
> to avoid code bloat?"
>
> is that I didn't think it was important to check for the user specifying
> the same option more than once.I interpreted you as saying: zap == remove completely "silly user specified no-argument option again" != "silly user specified option again" which made no sense to me at all, thus I asked for clarification. Instead of clarification I get "Ignoring the opinion that it isn't worth writing this code code for a moment, isn't it a sign that something needs further work when the same exact string occurs 9 times in the code?" The goal of the patch was to fix the fact that every error case resulted in the same output behaviour, it wasn't to make a call as to whether an error message was necessary or not. All 9 error cases had the same string because a sane compiler would have optimised this to just one string. As it turned out, I didn't remove the 9 cases, even though they are probably overkill, because I didn't want to get beaten up by somebody asking me why I was making two changes in one patch. Oh well. Regards, Graham --
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
