Jeff King <> writes:

> If I were doing it myself, I probably would have folded patches 1 and 3
> together. They are touching all the same spots, and it would be an error
> for any case converted in patch 1 to not get converted in patch 3. I'm
> assuming you caught them all due to Coccinelle, though IMHO it is
> somewhat overkill here. By folding them together the compiler could tell
> you which spots you missed.

Yeah, that approach would probably be a more sensible way to assure
the safety/correctness of the result to readers better.

> And going forward, I doubt it is going to be a common error for people
> to use maybe_tree directly. Between the name and the warning comment,
> you'd have to really try to shoot yourself in the foot with it. The
> primary concern was catching people using the existing "tree" name,
> whose semantics changed.


Reply via email to