Sorry for being late in responding. It's been busy days.
2016-08-18 21:51 GMT+02:00 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> The same comment applies to 1/2, too, in that the word "command"
> will be interpreted differently by different people. For example,
> "git co --help" and "git help co" would work, with or without 1/2 in
> place when you have "[alias] co = checkout", so we are calling "Git
> subcommands that we ship, custom commands 'git-$foo' the users have
> in their $PATH, and aliases the users create" collectively "command".
>
> As long as the reader understands that definition, both the log
> messages of 1/2 and 2/2 _and_ the updated description for "git help"
> we have in 1/2 are all very clear. I do not care too much about the
> commit log message, but we may want to think about the documentation
> a bit more.
>
> Here is what 1/2 adds to "git help" documentation:
>
> +Note that `git --help ...` is almost identical to `git help ...` because
> +the former is internally converted into the latter with option --command-only
> +being added.
>
> To display the linkgit:git[1] man page, use `git help git`.
>
> @@ -43,6 +44,10 @@ OPTIONS
> Prints all the available commands on the standard output. This
> option overrides any given command or guide name.
>
> +-c::
> +--command-only::
> + Display help information only for commands.
> +
>
> First, I do not think a short form is unnecessary; the users are not
> expected to use that form, once they started typing "git help...".
> If we flip the polarity and call it --exclude-guides or something,
> would it make it less ambiguous?
>
Sure. Since "command" is understood as both Git command
and guide in this context, the name --exclude-guides would describe the
behaviour of that option less ambiguous. I'll rename it.
>> This breaks "git <concept> --help" while "git help <concept>" still works.
>
> I wouldn't call that a breakage; "git everyday --help" shouldn't
> have worked in the first place. It did something useful merely by
> accident ;-).
>
OK, I'll call it "doesn't work anymore".
>> diff --git a/git.c b/git.c
>> index 0f1937f..2cd2e06 100644
>> --- a/git.c
>> +++ b/git.c
>> @@ -528,10 +528,23 @@ static void handle_builtin(int argc, const char **argv)
>> strip_extension(argv);
>> cmd = argv[0];
>>
>> - /* Turn "git cmd --help" into "git help cmd" */
>> + /* Turn "git cmd --help" into "git help --command-only cmd" */
>> if (argc > 1 && !strcmp(argv[1], "--help")) {
>> + struct argv_array args;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> argv[1] = argv[0];
>> argv[0] = cmd = "help";
>> +
>> + argv_array_init(&args);
>> + for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
>> + argv_array_push(&args, argv[i]);
>> + if (!i)
>> + argv_array_push(&args, "--command-only");
>> + }
>> +
>> + argc++;
>> + argv = argv_array_detach(&args);
>> }
>>
>> builtin = get_builtin(cmd);
>
> The code does this after it:
>
> if (builtin)
> exit(run_builtin(...));
>
> and returns. If we didn't get builtin, we risk leaking args.argv
> here, but we assume argv[0] = cmd = "help" is always a builtin,
> which I think is a safe assumption, so the code is OK. Static
> checkers that are only half intelligent may yell at you for not
> releasing the resources, though. I wonder if it is worth doing
>
> static void handle_builtin(int argc, const char **argv)
> {
> struct argv_array args = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
> ...
> if (argc > 1 && !strcmp(argv[1], "--help")) {
> ...
> argv = args.argv;
> }
> builtin = get_builtin(cmd);
> if (builtin)
> exit(run_builtin(...));
> argv_array_clear(&args);
> }
>
> to help unconfuse them.
>
I'll do it this way.
Thanks!
--
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