Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > So as a caller the strbuf is in a different state in case of error > depending whether > the strbuf already had some data in it. I think it would be better if > we only did > `strbuf_setlen(sb_out, oldlen);` here, such that the caller can > strbuf_release it > unconditionally.
If the caller _knows_ that the strbuf is no longer needed, it can unconditionally call strbuf_release() on it, whether its buffer was already released or only its length was set to 0, no? The callee is merely trying to be nice by resetting the strbuf to a state close to the original in the error return codepath, I would think. It may be debatable if such a niceness is needed, but it is a different matter that does not relate to the burden imposed on the caller.