Re: [PATCH v14 12/27] bisect--helper: `get_terms` & `bisect_terms` shell function in C

>>> +static int bisect_terms(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int argc)
>>> +{
>>> +     int i;
>>> +
>>> +     if (get_terms(terms)) {
>>> +             fprintf(stderr, _("no terms defined\n"));
>>> +             return -1;
>>> +     }
>>> +     if (argc == 0) {
>>> +             printf(_("Your current terms are %s for the old state\nand "
>>> +                    "%s for the new state.\n"), terms->term_good.buf,
>>> +                    terms->term_bad.buf);
>>> +             return 0;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
>>> +             if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-good"))
>>> +                     printf("%s\n", terms->term_good.buf);
>>> +             else if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-bad"))
>>> +                     printf("%s\n", terms->term_bad.buf);
>>> +             else
>>> +                     printf(_("invalid argument %s for 'git bisect "
>>> +                               "terms'.\nSupported options are: "
>>> +                               "--term-good|--term-old and "
>>> +                               "--term-bad|--term-new."), argv[i]);
>>> +     }
>>
>> The original took only one and gave one answer (and errored out when
>> the user asked for more), but this one loops.  I can see either way
>> is OK and do not think of a good reason to favor one over the other;
>> unless there is a strong reason why you need this extended behaviour
>> that allows users to ask multiple questions, I'd say we should keep
>> the original behaviour.
>
> True! I can just use return error() instead of printf. Also I noticed
> that this is printing to stdout while the original printed it to
> stderr. Thanks!