On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 01:34:00PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:07:43PM +0200, erik elfström wrote: > > >> Also if it turns out that we actually need to treat the "file too > >> large" error differently in clean (as discussed in thread on the file > >> size check) then we can no longer communicate that back using the > >> strbuf interface. > > > > Yeah, agreed. This system breaks down as soon as you need to > > programatically know which error happened. > > On the contrary: it separates the information that is used > programatically and the information intended for the user. > > The return value (or an int * parameter) distinguishes errors that > affect control flow. A string can provide information for the user. > > This way it is easy to tweak the information that the user sees in > one place, without changing control flow.
But the NULL does not carry the information about _which_ error, and Erik is suggesting that the caller may need to change behavior based on that information. IOW, his current patch (return NULL and set the specific integer code in a variable) allows this, but switching the integer code out for a human-readable strbuf does not. -Peff -- 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
