Thanks for taking the time to do thus. Only recently did I realize that I named the function incorrectly when I came up with it. In PoCore, I called it pc_error_trace(), for the same reasons you suggested here.
On Jun 23, 2011 9:20 AM, "Julian Foad" <julian.f...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 09:15 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > > On 06/23/2011 09:13 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > > To avoid this problem we could call it svn_error_trace1, or even > > > svn_error_trace2 since it is technically an upgrade from svn_error_return :) > > > > Or svn_error_traced() indicating that we've traced the error to this spot > > (so far). :-) > > Looking closer... > > There are 695 uses of svn_error_return. > > 681 of them are "return svn_error_return(...);". > > The other 14 are "some_err = svn_error_return(...);". > > So if we're going to change the vast majority of these in any way, what > do folks feel about replacing them with > > SVN_ERR_RETURN(...) No. SVN_ERR() is conditional. Code typically occurs afterwards, and is executed in the non-exceptional case. You're talking about creating a normally-used macro that will hide this control flow change. > > thus saving 9 characters of horizontal space? It harms readability. We don't need to save horizontal space. Last I looked, there was a surplus in the market, so it is being given away for free. -g
