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

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

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

>>> +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.