On Mon, Apr 19 2021, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:38:31AM -0400, 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). >> >> > 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 > > `--exec-path` does two different things based on whether you pass a "=" > or not: either you tell git where its binaries are, or you ask it where > it thinks they're. It's still true for some (most?) of the other options > though. I don't know how I got those conflated, but FWIW I meant (or at least think I did) the likes of --namespace[=], --git-dir[=] and --work-tree[=] where the "=" is really optional, but otherwise the option behaves the same.
