From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:13:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] inline constant return from error() function
Message-ID: <20140512181326.GA31164@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqppjkut6s.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:22:03AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The alternative you mentioned up-thread "... to write out "return
> error(...)"  as "error(...); return -1". In some ways that is more
> readable, though it is more verbose..." has one more downside you
> did not mention, and the approach to encapsulate it inside error()
> will not have it: new call-sites to error() do not have to worry
> about the issue with this approach.
> 
> Until it breaks, that is.  But that goes without saying with the
> "it's something we can count on" pre-condition in place ;-).

Yeah, I agree with this thinking. I'd rather not do something that
impacts each callsite until we have exhausted other options that hide
the complexity in the definition.

-Peff