Hey Junio,

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +static int bisect_terms(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int 
>> argc)
>> +{
>> +     int i;
>> +
>> +     if (get_terms(terms)) {
>> +             fprintf(stderr, _("no terms defined\n"));
>> +             return -1;
>> +     }
>> +     if (argc == 0) {
>> +             printf(_("Your current terms are %s for the old state\nand "
>> +                    "%s for the new state.\n"), terms->term_good.buf,
>> +                    terms->term_bad.buf);
>> +             return 0;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
>> +             if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-good"))
>> +                     printf("%s\n", terms->term_good.buf);
>> +             else if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-bad"))
>> +                     printf("%s\n", terms->term_bad.buf);
>> +             else
>> +                     printf(_("invalid argument %s for 'git bisect "
>> +                               "terms'.\nSupported options are: "
>> +                               "--term-good|--term-old and "
>> +                               "--term-bad|--term-new."), argv[i]);
>> +     }
>
> The original took only one and gave one answer (and errored out when
> the user asked for more), but this one loops.  I can see either way
> is OK and do not think of a good reason to favor one over the other;
> unless there is a strong reason why you need this extended behaviour
> that allows users to ask multiple questions, I'd say we should keep
> the original behaviour.

True! I can just use return error() instead of printf. Also I noticed
that this is printing to stdout while the original printed it to
stderr. Thanks!

Regards,
Pranit Bauva
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to