On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:40:36PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Bonus points to anyone sorting out some of the existing inconsistencies > when fixing this, i.e. --exec-path supports either the "=" form, or not, > but various other skip_prefix() in the same function don't, seemingly > (but I have not tested) for no good reason. I suspect just because it's more (per-option) work to support both types, and nobody really cared enough to do so. > It seems to me that having a skip_prefix_opt() or something would be a > good fix for this, i.e. a "maybe trim the last '='" version of > skip_prefix. Then we could just consistently use that. There's a similar situation in the revision parser (which does not use our regular parse-options). There we have a parse_long_opt() helper which does the right thing. We could use that more widely. I also wouldn't be surprised if we could leverage one of the sub-functions of parse-options, but it might turn into a rabbit hole. Converting the whole thing to the usual parse_options() might get awkward, since many of the options operate at time-of-parse, not after we've seen everything (I suspect many of them don't care either way, but you're always risking subtle regressions there). > Or maybe there's some reason we don't want to be as lax as --exec-path > with any other option... I can't think of one. -Peff
