On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:47:20AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> +`OPT_ARGUMENT(long, &int_var, description)`::
> >> Introduce a long-option argument that will be kept in `argv[]`.
> >> + If this option was seen, `int_var` will be set to one (except
> >> + if a `NULL` pointer was passed).
> >
> > So this effectively makes it into a "bool" that we keep. I think that's
> > fine. It always uses NOARG, so it is not like we would ever need to see
> > "we got --foo, and this is the argument it had".
> >
> > I did wonder if it was possible for "--no-foo" to trigger this (leaving
> > the caller who looks at the int unsure if they saw "--foo" or
> > "--no-foo"), but it seems that the parse-options code checks for
> > OPTION_ARGUMENT before it ever looks at negation.
>
> When a caller that needs to tell --no-foo and lack of any foo
> related option arises, we should be able to update the function
> further so that the caller can initialize the variable to -1
> (unspecified) and make sure that 0 is left upon seeing --no-foo
> so it's not a show stopper, I guess.
The way it is written, I think the intent is that you would do:
OPT_ARGUMENT("foo", &saw_foo, ...),
OPT_ARGUMENT("no-foo", &saw_no_foo, ...),
I'm happy to punt on it until it ever comes up (which I suspect may be
never).
-Peff
