On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 10:17 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 01:33:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> >> I realize that I am reinventing the error-reporting wheel on a sleepy
> >> Sunday afternoon without having thought about it much, so there is
> >> probably some gotcha or case that makes this ugly, or perhaps it just
> >> ends up verbose in practice. But one can dream.
> >
> > Just for fun...
> 
> Yes, that is fun.
> 
> I actually think your "In 'version:pefname' and 'wersion:refname',
> we want be able to report 'pefname' and 'wersion' are misspelled,
> and returning -1 or enum would not cut it" is a good argument.  The
> callee wants to have flexibility on _what_ to report, just as the
> caller wants to have flexibility on _how_.  In this particular code
> path, I think the former far outweighs the latter, and my suggestion
> I called "silly" might not be so silly but may have struck the right
> balance.  I dunno.
> 
> If you absolutely need to have both, you would need something like
> your approach, of course, but I am not sure if it is worth it.
> 
> I am not sure how well this meshes with i18n (I know the "for fun"
> does not even attempt to, but if we tried to, I suspect it may
> become even uglier).  We would also need to override both error and
> warning routines and have the reporter tag the errors in these two
> categories, no?
> 

Do we want to go this way? Should I respin my patch (again)? I'm not
sure we really need to get that complex.. I do like parsing errors a bit
cleaner and indicating what part is bad.. Note that our current parsing
method does not make it really possible to indicate which part is wrong.

Thanks,
Jake

Reply via email to