Hey Junio,
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +static int write_terms(const char *bad, const char *good)
>> +{
>> + FILE *fp;
>> + int res;
>> +
>> + if (!strcmp(bad, good))
>> + return error(_("please use two different terms"));
>> +
>> + if (check_term_format(bad, "bad") || check_term_format(good, "good"))
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + fp = fopen(git_path_bisect_terms(), "w");
>> + if (!fp)
>> + return error_errno(_("could not open the file BISECT_TERMS"));
>> +
>> + res = fprintf(fp, "%s\n%s\n", bad, good);
>> + res |= fclose(fp);
>> + return (res < 0) ? -1 : 0;
>> +}
>
> If fprintf(3) were a function that returns 0 on success and negative
> on error (like fclose(3) is), the pattern to cascade the error
> return with "res |= another_call()" is appropriate, but the made me
> hiccup a bit while reading it. It is not wrong per-se and it would
> certainly be making it worse if we did something silly like
>
> res = fprintf(...) < 0 ? -1 : 0;
> res |= fclose(fp);
>
> so I guess what you have is the most succinct way to do this.
I agree with your point and your suggested code is better!
Regards,
Pranit Bauva
--
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
