Re: [PATCH 10/10] unpack_loose_rest(): rewrite return handling for clarity

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 02:10:11AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 07:36:42PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 01:34:21AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > > This should make the logic a bit easier to follow. It does mean
> > > duplicating the buf cleanup for errors, but it's a single line.
> >
> > At least to my eyes, I actually prefer the state after 9/10 and would
> > probably be OK to see this patch get dropped. I wish I had a compelling
> > reason *why* I felt that way, but I think it may too subjective.
> >
> > I don't feel strongly about it either way, though.
>
> I also don't have a super strong feeling, though I fall on the other
> side of the line (which is why I bothered sending the patch).
>
> If we didn't do that, I think the alternative is probably a comment
> like:
>
>   if (error1)
> 	error(describe error1);
>   else if (error2)
> 	error(describe error2);
>   else
> 	return buf;
>
>   /* if we didn't return above, we saw some error */
>   free(buf);
>   return NULL;
>
> I dunno. I'd probably stick with what I send. ;)

Fair enough ;-).

Thanks,
Taylor