From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2EED19C56A for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 16:05:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.146 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727971522; cv=none; b=aAh8Clb4RYGP4+v0FBqqUJWvBXKiQ4DFdwcRMRzn2Do4u5lHSN4q4zEfd8Rxe53IRpe5O+JYIRzJ+E8PImhp3s10D+nQUdLkE2u229U/kC+jtaQkSdbPBWhfJX0/lpHkxXFsYqGdnp4/pOrCKrZZlf8wAgzTFn3aL/JG/QIZLkQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727971522; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nt33jXv8M86rIzb2RwKljbCw8sZWeysag7Di/NWoS38=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=d4Lm+kQ6zaMztZ11YFuENnNyzLr58/ntb1JF2VlQL9TpEJ328d99LaFbjfLjMuH/iDajkLO+fVmIbcBLVBvNeoh8j3gLul8YRlm4CGUq/E3yA3yPIBqdHvLKQT7vziiT4Fire/Evsw3jMoeoRXOxl3Bx08qvgFKXql5g91uofUM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=rJtdGrqT; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=fLNAUu4B; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.146 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="rJtdGrqT"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="fLNAUu4B" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.phl.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D230B1380497; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 12:05:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 03 Oct 2024 12:05:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1727971519; x=1728057919; bh=nt33jXv8M8 6rIzb2RwKljbCw8sZWeysag7Di/NWoS38=; b=rJtdGrqTnLPzqyowZtc3QDsgvM N6Dr1d2Umk65uBLikooDjMfEn5npMfwX4RnX1debhMXl2bDFWDs5gQvxBi1UkFto YPMcDnPTMIq+AndtD0naILbnhbj4hFO0e51Io3Gag3krhkL7TrRERlBw/BcQG3Cl XGNiU2fymymoEcD6lSmE+P6bun8oa14TzmTNWKUo41ARsvvu775fsAFWdwUNab5z o/WK6Stlsj12apJDK3+fsnUinxQXtz+MCdpSvaVdXdS1/zyOQ2BMiMx6JHduIWiX PEIJYA6c1+GQV1pq7RxPwmDzxYKw05Ljb5CVJIm9HoDgX5GDHPAW7op2udXQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1727971519; x=1728057919; bh=nt33jXv8M86rIzb2RwKljbCw8sZW eysag7Di/NWoS38=; b=fLNAUu4BzwSK/Wzd4ZTSy1IxFtZatZ6SraYKlEyFGY9Q CiIJIPIgO5J8/M8wt3q0VfJkMTnYJK2Qy59SIOp7PbFLBWu8IHUxDbu8h5wOxkEr rifxlVjtP75KNKGoBEGwW0ZXpJaSNBmPynKHHftU1QzNqaqAguEaZAjRjLWUGSI1 3a6Lkg8tyVorbjrclKxUQp7c7u3wwVeOacP5dcitmc3VKmkpTuORhakCI1cFp/0a UA+ZaltluvtcX6SN9QtJJzl3uMkxMmx1xv/MeXrVIszi56exnUohNyWTgHWb45/f /T/pJ0KrE1+Wgctc72TspWXv/eWq8WzikjHH4KIP/Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvddvuddgleejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertden ucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogi drtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeej leeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrg hmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghp thhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepshhunhhshhhinhgvse hsuhhnshhhihhnvggtohdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehsrghnuggrlhhssegtrhhushht hihtohhothhhphgrshhtvgdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhoug esughunhgvlhhmrdhorhhgrdhukhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhn vghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepnhgrshgrmhhufhhfihhnsehgohhoghhlvgdrtghomh dprhgtphhtthhopehoshifrghlugdrsghuugguvghnhhgrghgvnhesghhmgidruggvpdhr tghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 12:05:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: "brian m. carlson" , phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, git@vger.kernel.org, Emily Shaffer , Oswald Buddenhagen Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] Add a type for errors In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:14:11 -0400") References: <20240930220352.2461975-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20240930220352.2461975-2-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <2d2f14ea-cfdc-4b52-948f-b42c8f6e41de@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 09:05:17 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Eric Sunshine writes: > Your proposal uses Rust as a model to justify the API choice in this > RFC, but Phillip's point was that -- despite being perfectly suitable > in Rust -- it is _not_ ergonomic in C. > ... > That's why I said in my original response that I didn't understand > your response to Phillip. You seem to be using a non-justification > ("other programmers suffer, so Git programmers can suffer too") as a > justification for a non-ergonomic design. The statement may be a bit too harsh, as some may not even realize that they are suffering anymore, after prolonged exposure to these idioms, just like C folks consider it is a fact of life that they have to carefully manage their pointers and the memory they point at. I do agree that "return value with more details in the out parameter whose address is supplied by the caller" is a convention that is easier to grok when written in C. Thanks.