Hi Tim, On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 07:32:10PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > > No emergency but since I guess you're using them in your code, it would > > be nice that your first caller uses either a secured or explicit version. > > I'll opt for the explicit version, because for a secured version I'd need a > proper return value to indicate whether it succeeded or not and I really > don't want istappend() to take a pointer. I suspect that no one would have > checked that return value anyway, because it is not really actionable.
OK! > I'd preferred if you would not have taken the patch yet. A follow-up feels > ugly and writing a good commit message is hard :-) Hey don't worry. If I merged it it's because it was correct. Matters of taste and naming are what the current cool down period is for and I'm perfectly fine with stacking patch iterations to clean up some stuff until we're perfectly happy. I've already done quite some renaming and some still remains so that's pretty fine. Applied now, thank you! Willy
