On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:22:03AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The alternative you mentioned up-thread "... to write out "return
> error(...)"  as "error(...); return -1". In some ways that is more
> readable, though it is more verbose..." has one more downside you
> did not mention, and the approach to encapsulate it inside error()
> will not have it: new call-sites to error() do not have to worry
> about the issue with this approach.
> Until it breaks, that is.  But that goes without saying with the
> "it's something we can count on" pre-condition in place ;-).

Yeah, I agree with this thinking. I'd rather not do something that
impacts each callsite until we have exhausted other options that hide
the complexity in the definition.

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