On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 09:03 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> writes:
> > 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?
> I do not speak for Peff, but I personally think this is just a "fun"
> demonstration, nothing more, and my gut feeling is that it would
> make things unnecessary complex without much real gain to pursue it
I agree. But what about going back to the older setup where the caller
can output correct error message? I'm ok with using an enum style
return, to be completely honest. I would prefer this, actually.