Hello,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> That does make sense, It would also not error out when we use
>> %(objectname:short=) and
>> not specify the length. Idk, if that's desirable or not. But it does
>> make the code a little more
>> confusing to read at the same time.
>>
>
> I am not sure that would be the case. If you see "objectname:short"
> you trreat this as if they had passed "objectname:short=<default
> abbrev>" but if you see "objectname:short=" you die, no?
>
Sorry, my bad.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> else if (!strcmp(arg, "short"))
>> - atom->u.objectname = O_SHORT;
>> - else
>> + atom->u.objectname.option = O_SHORT;
>> + else if (skip_prefix(arg, "short=", &arg)) {
>> + atom->u.objectname.option = O_LENGTH;
>> + if (strtoul_ui(arg, 10, &atom->u.objectname.length) ||
>> + atom->u.objectname.length == 0)
>> + die(_("positive value expected objectname:short=%s"), arg);
>> + if (atom->u.objectname.length < MINIMUM_ABBREV)
>> + atom->u.objectname.length = MINIMUM_ABBREV;
>> + } else
>> die(_("unrecognized %%(objectname) argument: %s"), arg);
>> }
>
> Users who want to use the default-abbrev, i.e. the autoscaling one
> introduced recently, must use "short", not "short=-1", with this
> code (especially with the "must be at least MINIMUM_ABBREV" logic),
> but I do not think it is a problem, so I think this is good.
>
I think I'll leave this as it is. If that's okay
--
Regards,
Karthik Nayak