Re: [PATCH v2] Detailed diagnosis when parsing an object name fails.

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 7, 2009, 00:30 UTC
Message-ID: <7vtyw3bp7r.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <vpqhbs4dkjr.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

>>> +extern int get_sha1_with_mode_1(const char *str, unsigned char *sha1, unsigned *mode, int fatal, const char *prefix);
>>
>> Do I understand correctly that "fatal" here is the same as "!gently"
>> elsewhere in the API?
>
> It seems it is. I renamed it.

This was a pure question, not a suggestion to change it (we do name a function do_foo_gently() when there is do_foo() that does the same but reports errors more noisily, though). I found the name "fatal" a bit confusing as I at first couldn't tell if the caller was telling the function that it already detected a "fatal" error (and telling the function to report the fatalness) and didn't realize that the caller is instead saying "if you find an error, treat it as a fatal one" until I read it again.

I am Ok with the new "gently" name with the negative semantics as well (I see no need to change it back to "error_is_fatal").

Thanks.