Hello Junio, Thank you for reviewing my code. I appreciate it. I made the changes here [1]. On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 16:19 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taking these together, I _think_ this patch is moving things in the > right direction, in that it allows callers of parse_options_step() > to tell "user knew what option s/he wanted, and sufficient error > message has already be given" and "user gave us a nonsense option > and would be helped by usage text" cases apart by introducing a new > value PARSE_OPT_ERROR, but in order to be able to correctly give > PARSE_OPT_ERROR back to the caller, parse_long_opt() and > parse_short_opt() (possibly, but I didn't check) would need a bit of > tweak to help their callers in this function. I am not sure I got this right, but I believe this is already done. - If an error occurs during value parsing in parse_short_opt or parse_long_opt then -1 is returned and parse_option_step returns PARSE_OPT_ERROR. - If parse_short_opt and parse_long_opt encounter an unknown option then -2 is returned and parse_option_step returns PARSE_OPT_UNKNOWN (but only if PARSE_OPT_KEEP_UNKNOWN is not specified). - If usage is shown by calling usage_with_options_internal then PARSE_OPT_HELP is going to be forwarded and also returned by parse_options_step. What I also changed in the new patch [1] is to make parse_long_opt return -3 when ambiguous option are found, in which case parse_options_step will handle this return value by showing usage and returning PARSE_OPT_HELP. Please correct me if I am wrong. [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180306193116.23876-1-ungureanupaulse bastian@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u Best regards, Paul Ungureanu
