Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Tim Henigan <tim.henigan@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> +# the '--prompt' and '--no-prompt' options require special treatment
>> +# because they may be specified more than once...the last one "wins".
>> +for (@ARGV) {
>> + if (($_ eq "-y") or ($_ eq "--no-prompt")) {
>> + $prompt = 0;
>> + } elsif ($_ eq "--prompt") {
>> + $prompt = 1;
>> + } else {
>> + push(@diffargs, $_);
>> + }
>> +}
>
> I really do not like the direction in which this series is going. We do
> not have a similar --no-gui option to defeat --gui option that may appear
> earlier on the command line, but when we fix that bug (isn't it a bug?),
> we would have to teach this loop about that option, wouldn't we?
>
> In the end, won't you end up resurrecting the argument parsing loop that
> you got rid of with the first patch in your series? Isn't this working
> around the problem introduced only because you are using Getopt::Long and
> hitting its limitations?
Limitations? You can basically steal code from git-send-email. As an
example:
---- 8< ----
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Getopt::Long;
my $foo = 0;
my $rc = GetOptions("foo!" => \$foo,
"n" => sub { $foo = 0; },
"y" => \$foo);
print "$foo\n";
---- 8< ----
$ ./getopt-test.perl -n
0
$ ./getopt-test.perl -y
1
$ ./getopt-test.perl --foo
1
$ ./getopt-test.perl --no-foo
0
$ ./getopt-test.perl --foo --no-foo
0
$ ./getopt-test.perl -y -n
0
$ ./getopt-test.perl --foo -n
0
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
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