Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com> writes:
> +static int write_terms(const char *bad, const char *good)
> +{
> + FILE *fp;
> + int res;
> +
> + if (!strcmp(bad, good))
> + return error(_("please use two different terms"));
> +
> + if (check_term_format(bad, "bad") || check_term_format(good, "good"))
> + return -1;
> +
> + fp = fopen(git_path_bisect_terms(), "w");
> + if (!fp)
> + return error_errno(_("could not open the file BISECT_TERMS"));
> +
> + res = fprintf(fp, "%s\n%s\n", bad, good);
> + res |= fclose(fp);
> + return (res < 0) ? -1 : 0;
> +}
If fprintf(3) were a function that returns 0 on success and negative
on error (like fclose(3) is), the pattern to cascade the error
return with "res |= another_call()" is appropriate, but the made me
hiccup a bit while reading it. It is not wrong per-se and it would
certainly be making it worse if we did something silly like
res = fprintf(...) < 0 ? -1 : 0;
res |= fclose(fp);
so I guess what you have is the most succinct way to do this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
