Re: [PATCH 0/5] promise: introduce promises to track success or error
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Feb 20, 2024, 02:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20240220025722.GE2713741@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <bd340a27-bfb4-41b2-a1fa-356ab7dbbd36@gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 02:25:29PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> I think we'd be better served by some kind of structured error type like the
> failure_result in this patch series that is allocated on the stack by the
> caller at the entry point to the library and passed down the call chain.
> That avoids the need for lots of dynamic allocations and allows us to
> continue allocating "out" parameters on the stack. For example
>
> int f(struct repository *r) {
> struct object_id oid;
>
> if (repo_get_oid(r, "HEAD", &oid))
> return error(_("could not parse HEAD"))
>
> /* use oid here */
> }
>
> would become
> int f(struct repository *r, struct error *err) {
> struct object_id oid;
>
> if (repo_get_oid(r, "HEAD", &oid))
> return error(&err, _("could not parse HEAD"))
>
> /* use oid here */
> }
>
> I'm sure this has been discussed in the past but I didn't manage to turn
> anything up with a quick search of the archive on lore.kernel.org.There's some discussion in this sub-thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20171103191309.sth4zjokgcupvk2e@sigill.intra.peff.net/
that also references this earlier thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20160927191955.mympqgylrxhkp24n@sigill.intra.peff.net/
I still think this is a reasonable way to go. At one point I had a proof-of-concept conversion of some of the ref code, but I don't think I have it any more.
-Peff