On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:14:39PM -0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz
> <eantoranz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I do find what Peff showed us a lot easier to follow.
> >>
> >> if (opts.show_progress < 0) {
> >> if (opts.quiet)
> >> opts.show_progress = 0;
> >> else
> >> opts.show_progress = isatty(2);
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > Ok.... let me rewrite it that way. Other than that, the other things are ok?
>
> In Peff's implementation I think he uses -1 as --no-progress, 1 as
> --progress and 0 as undefined, right?
I didn't mean to, though I don't promise I didn't send something buggy.
It looks right to me, though:
if (opts.show_progress < 0) { /* if the user didn't say... */
if (opts.quiet)
opts.show_progress = 0; /* quiet means "no progress" */
else
opts.show_progress = isatty(2); /* returns 0/1 bool */
}
> In my implementation I'm using -1 as undefined and 0 as --no-progress.
> What would be the standard approach?
That's standard. And "1" is "--progress".
> From what I can see on
> parse_options's behavior, if you select --no-progress, the variable
> ends up with a 0, which makes me think I'm using the right approach.
>
> End result with my assumptions would be:
>
> if (opts.show_progress) {
> /* user selected --progress or didn't specify */
> if (opts.quiet) {
> opts.show_progress = 0;
> } else if (opts.show_progress < 0) {
> opts.show_progress = isatty(2);
> }
> }
The difference between mine and yours is that in mine, "--progress"
trumps "--quiet", whereas it is the other way around in yours. I don't
know if it is a huge deal, but mine makes more sense to me (because
"--progress" is more specific than "--quiet", which might silence other
messages, too).
-Peff
--
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