Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Handle errors when setting configs

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > The end result is roughly the same, but it's a lot less churn, and it's
> > more likely for new callers to get it right, because they have to go the
> > extra mile to ignore the error. I say "roughly" because it treats cases
> > we missed as "die", whereas yours leaves them as "ignore". I find it
> > highly unlikely that any of them actually _want_ the ignore behavior,
> > though.
> 
> Yes, I like this approach better.  It admittedly is more risky in
> that it would die if the conversion missed a case that should
> ignore, but I suspect that such a breakage would be found rather
> quickly (and the one that goes latent are the ones that do not
> matter in practice because people would not encounter them).
> 
> > I'm just pondering, though. I don't find the "or_die" variant bad at
> > all, so if you really prefer it, I don't mind.
> >
> > Just to get a sense of what the reverse would look like, I worked up the
> > patch below (which compiles but does not link, as I did not actually
> > implement the "gently" form). Some error-checking call-sites are
> > converted to the "die" form, because that's essentially what happens
> > anyway (and I'd venture to say that the config code can provide a much
> > better error message).
> 
> This variant certainly looks nicer to me, for the reasons give above.