Check, I hear you. I'll split it tomorrow then (tired right now and working while tired is a no-no) and resubmit the positive-success-report version.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:35:06 -0500, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, I think we may be talking about two different cases... > > There's the "check if a call returned an error, and if so return that to > your caller" case, which personally I think is easist to read as: > > if (rv) > return rv; > > If there is an error, we return it, the code does exactly what you would > read out loud if you were reading it to someone. In Subversion land we > make it even more explicit by using 'err' or 'apr_err' for the variable > holding the status, instead of rv, but even without that it's still more > readable this way IMO. > > And there's the "check if a call succeeded, and if so return that to > your caller" case, which I'm not all that picky about. Perhaps > including APR_SUCCESS there in some manner is probably best, as it makes > it clear that we're looking for success. > > The patch seems to deal with both situations, and in the first case I > just don't see how it helps other than making things more verbose when > there's little need. > > -garrett > -- Mihai Limbasan
