From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:45:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mergetools/tortoisemerge: simplify can_diff() by using "false"
Message-ID: <775B98CA998147CC9A68CF6040B86CE1@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <20161212071646.5bqnnjpfnmnj6fm4@gmail.com>

From: "David Aguilar" <davvid@gmail.com>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 09:15:34AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> Am 10.12.2016 um 04:21 schrieb David Aguilar:
>> > Signed-off-by: David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > This patch builds upon da/mergetool-trust-exit-code
>> >
>> >  mergetools/tortoisemerge | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mergetools/tortoisemerge b/mergetools/tortoisemerge
>> > index d7ab666a59..9067d8a4e5 100644
>> > --- a/mergetools/tortoisemerge
>> > +++ b/mergetools/tortoisemerge
>> > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>> >  can_diff () {
>> > - return 1
>> > + false
>> >  }
>>
>> Why is this a simplification?
>>
>> My concern is that 'false' is not necessarily a shell built-in. Then this 
>> is
>> actually a pessimization.
>
> The "simplification" is semantic only.
>
> Motivation: if someone reads the implementation of can_diff()
> and it says "false" then that communicates intent moreso than
> reading "return 1", which a programmer unfamiliar with shell
> conventions might misinterpret as boolean "true".
>

Is this a case where a short comment would be informative?

 + return 1 /* shell: false */


> I care less about semantics then I do about making things better
> for Windows, so we can forget about these two patches.
> -- 
> David
>
--
Philip