On Sat, Apr 17 2021, Jeff King wrote: > 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). So we could use parse_options() and guarantee the existing behavior if they were all OPT_CALLBACK?
