Martin Ågren <martin.ag...@gmail.com> writes:
>> static int grab_objectname(const char *name, const unsigned char *sha1,
>> - struct atom_value *v, struct used_atom *atom)
>> + struct atom_value *v, struct used_atom *atom,
>> + struct strbuf *err)
>> {
>> ...
>> + } else {
>> + strbuf_addstr(err, "BUG: unknown %(objectname)
>> option");
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> }
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> This is interesting. This die() is never ever supposed to actually
> trigger, except to allow a developer adding some new O_xxx-value to
> quickly notice that they have forgotten to add code here.
Yup, BUG() is meant for a case like this; the original code predates
the BUG("message") which in turn predates the die("BUG: message")
convention, I think.
>> default:
>> - die("Eh? Object of type %d?", obj->type);
>> + strbuf_addf(err, "Eh? Object of type %d?", obj->type);
>> + return -1;
>> }
>> + return 0;
>> }
>
> This seems similar. The string here is quite sloppy, and I do not
> believe that the author intended this to be user-visible. I believe this
> is more like a very short way of saying "how could we possibly get
> here??". It could also be written as die("BUG: unknown object type %d",
> obj->type), or even better: BUG(...).
Likewise.
