Re: [RFC] Cleaning up die() error messages

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Oct 10, 2005, 19:04 UTC
Message-ID: <7vzmph42j2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20051010105008.GB30202@gentoo.org>

Elfyn McBratney <beu@gentoo.org> writes:

> (Of course, the C parts (`prog' and `set_prog_name()') would go into a
> header, and not in every single C source file. ;)
>
> So, any thoughts/comments/flames? :)

I do not have objections to either one, except I tend to prefer programs that tells its full path when erroring out, which helps me identify "Oops, my path was screwed up and I am not testing the right one" case.

One thing to keep in mind is how badly this C part might interact with the libification effort going on underwater. Since current code Smurf is working on is based on 0.99.6 and many small pieces need to be reviewed anyway, I am not so much worried about forward porting the changes. But some die()s that are in the parts that will be moved to the common library code would also want to use this prog global somehow.

But that would not be too much of a problem. Worst case, we force the library clients to do set_prog_name(), or initialize prog to "(unnamed)", or do both.