Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:07 PM Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:53:35PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
>> This one is good:
>> > + if (unset || !strcmp(arg, "abort"))
>> > + reencode_mode = REENCODE_ABORT;
>>
>> But here: does it make sense to use REENCODE_YES/NO to be more consistant ?
>> > + else if (!strcmp(arg, "yes"))
>> > + reencode_mode = REENCODE_PLEASE;
>> > + else if (!strcmp(arg, "no"))
>> > + reencode_mode = REENCODE_NEVER;
>
> Didn't realize there was any such convention, and even have difficulty
> finding it with grep (CONTAINS_{YES,NO} appears to be the only example
> I can find), but the alternate wording seems fine; I'm happy to adopt
> it.
I am OK with Yes/No.
Don't we want to treat this as "bool or literal 'abort'", though?
Other options that are "bool or something else" tend to accept
"true" as a synonym for "yes", and I am wondering if we want to
follow suit here, too.
Thanks.
