On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I do remember some people didn't like -X<option> syntax but I don't >> think there was any solid counterproposal to achieve a similar goal to >> satisfy the need to pass arbitrary parameters to the merge strategy >> backends. > > I took exception to the awkward way to specify the option. A strong hint > just how awkward -X<option> is: it is hard to implement using > parse-options. I read the earlier thread and I still don't quite understand this point. What makes it difficult? X seems just like any other option that takes a string parameter (which is easily supported by getopt at least; I haven't played with parse_options but I certainly hope it's as good as getopt). The string parameter (say, $x) is translated directly into "--$x" and passed as exactly one argument of the argv array to the subprogram. Easy, right? Plus Junio already wrote a patch to do it (which I'm in the process of forward-porting) and it seems pretty straightforward. Perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks, Avery -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html