Re: [PATCH] checkout: add --progress option

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> I sometimes find it confusing when there are two variables with very
> similar meanings (option_progress and show_progress here). I wonder if
> we could use one variable, like:
>
>   static int show_progress = -1;
>   ...
>   OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &show_progress, ...);
>   ...
>   parse_options(...);
>   if (show_progress < 0) {
> 	if (opts.quiet)
> 		show_progress = 0;
> 	else
> 		show_progress = isatty(2);
>   }
>
> That somehow is much clearer to me, especially around the behavior of
> "-q --progress". Mine does the opposite of what you wrote above, but I
> think it makes more sense.
>
> I can live with it either way, though. :)

Actually, using a single variable is my preference.  In this case I
wanted to illustrate that the value parsed by parse_options() does
not have to be the one that is used in the final location deep in
the callchain for educational purposes, and I found it clearer to
use two separate variables in the illustration.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]