From: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 20:21:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v11 03/13] bisect--helper: `write_terms` shell function in C
Message-ID: <CAFZEwPNFz60GrX9ZqaFAvCU4HoNg8rmuqa0t5+DXFjaEHTmDeg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq37mnf4vk.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hey Junio,

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +static int write_terms(const char *bad, const char *good)
>> +{
>> +     FILE *fp;
>> +     int res;
>> +
>> +     if (!strcmp(bad, good))
>> +             return error(_("please use two different terms"));
>> +
>> +     if (check_term_format(bad, "bad") || check_term_format(good, "good"))
>> +             return -1;
>> +
>> +     fp = fopen(git_path_bisect_terms(), "w");
>> +     if (!fp)
>> +             return error_errno(_("could not open the file BISECT_TERMS"));
>> +
>> +     res = fprintf(fp, "%s\n%s\n", bad, good);
>> +     res |= fclose(fp);
>> +     return (res < 0) ? -1 : 0;
>> +}
>
> If fprintf(3) were a function that returns 0 on success and negative
> on error (like fclose(3) is), the pattern to cascade the error
> return with "res |= another_call()" is appropriate, but the made me
> hiccup a bit while reading it.  It is not wrong per-se and it would
> certainly be making it worse if we did something silly like
>
>         res = fprintf(...) < 0 ? -1 : 0;
>         res |= fclose(fp);
>
> so I guess what you have is the most succinct way to do this.

I agree with your point and your suggested code is better!

Regards,
Pranit Bauva