On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 05:05:35PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > On 7/9/25 3:58 PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 11:45:14AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > >> > >> Call the function that does the raw casting do_get_int_value() to > >> reserve the name get_int_value() for a more friendly wrapper we're > >> going to introduce in one of the next patches. > > >> diff --git a/parse-options.c b/parse-options.c > >> index 68ff494492..ddac008a5e 100644 > >> --- a/parse-options.c > >> +++ b/parse-options.c > >> @@ -68,6 +68,26 @@ static char *fix_filename(const char *prefix, const char *file) > >> return prefix_filename_except_for_dash(prefix, file); > >> } > >> > >> +static int do_get_int_value(const void *value, size_t precision, intmax_t *ret) > > > > Nit: after the fourth patch we have `do_get_int_value()` and > > `get_int_value()`, where the major difference is that the latter dies if > > we failed to parse the value. It might be easier to discern which is > > which if we called them `get_int_value()` and `get_int_value_or_die()`. > > That would be misleading because get_int_value() doesn't die() like a > function from write-or-die.c, it BUGs instead. I don't think it makes > sense to advertise the presence of assertions in a function's name. > But we do have a tradition of using a prefix of "do_" with wrapped > functions that have a more raw interface and do the actual work. > > Nit: They don't parse, but cast a void pointer to the appropriate type > and dereference it. Fair enough. I don't mind it much either way, thanks! Patrick
