Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> For better readability, convert the if-else tower into a switch
> statement.
The reference to "tower" is something new to me. A quick search
seems to tell me that "if-else cascade", which is what I've been
using around here, is not popular, either. "if-else ladder" is the
term more often used, it seems.
> Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Thanks for the suggestion, both. Please queue this patch wherever it
> makes the most sense to do so (either with the existing series or on its
> own separate branch).
>
> remote.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
OK. Sitting down and thinking about it, the reason is obvious, but
TIL that switch/case is slightly more verbose ;-).
> + case OBJ_BLOB:
> advise(_("The <src> part of the refspec is a blob object.\n"
> "Did you mean to tag a new blob by pushing to\n"
> "'%s:refs/tags/%s'?"),
> matched_src_name, dst_value);
> - } else {
> + break;
> + default:
> advise(_("The <src> part of the refspec ('%s') is an object ID that doesn't exist.\n"),
This line alone is overly long; it is not part of _this_ patch but
is showing the state after that BUG()->advise() fix, so it should be
fixed there, I think?
> matched_src_name);
> + break;
> }
> }
