dbwrap_tool: Simplify persistent/non-persistent check / dbwrap_tool: Avoid an unnecessary "else"

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 23:30 +0200, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:11:32AM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > While each of these looks reasonable on its own, is this really the
> > clearest (rather than cleverest) possible way this could have been
> > constructed as a whole?
> 
> s/clearest/clearer/
> 
> yes. The clearest way? Who knows. Patches welcome.
> 
> > > -       if ((persistent == 0 && non_persistent == 0) ||
> > > -           (persistent == 1 && non_persistent == 1))
> > > -       {
> > > +       if ((persistent + non_persistent) != 1) {
> > >                 d_fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: you must specify exactly one "
> > >                           "of --persistent and --non-persistent\n");
> > >                 goto done;
> > > -       } else if (non_persistent == 1) {
> > > +       }
> > > +       if (non_persistent == 1) {
> > >                 tdb_flags |= TDB_CLEAR_IF_FIRST;
> > >         }
> > 
> > What specifically was the goal of the change here?
> 
> What specifically is the goal of this rhetorical question?

I was hoping to hear a rationale as to how this is 'simplified', to
argue against such 'simplification' in the future and to rhetorically
suggest that isn't the case here.

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
https://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team         https://samba.org
Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT   
https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba