On 06/05 11:22, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ah, I misread those examples that suggested that you are supposed to > check for N+1 when you expect N arguments. They are *not* using > parse_options() and that is where that funny numbering comes from. > > This one uses "argc = parse_options(...)" so we should check for N > when we want N args. Thanks. No worries. BTW, should I include the `path == NULL` check in the if-statement? I think the `argc` check would suffice but I would still love to hear a final verdict from you and Christian :)
