On 01/11, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I however fail to see why that necessitates to change use_index to > > no_index, making the code harder to follow by introducing double > > negation. > > Oh, perhaps your thinking is that there are multiple ways that > use_index can become 0 (i.e. it could come from the config, could > come from an explicit --no-index, or it could come from the new > default behaviour), and the error messages deep in the callchain > (long after option parsing is done) want to react to these > differences. Yes, that's what I was thinking, sorry if I wasn't clear before. Though I think the a bit more generic error messages are just fine, so we can avoid the double negation. > To that I am somewhat sympathetic, but then use_index can become 1 > (rather, no_index can become 0) in multiple ways (i.e. it can be > because the user is just using the command as designed for its > primary use case, or the user explicitly said --no-no-index), so I > am not sure. > > In either case, I do not have a strong objection. Avoiding double > negation is merely a moderately strong general preference. -- 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