Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jean-Noël AVILA <jn.avila@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> The choices here may be awkward; no problem to propose even more descriptive >> names. >> >>> Similarly "the 'format:<format-string>' format" feels highly >>> redundant, I expect the reader knows that <string> contains a format >>> inside it as it's mentioned immediately before *and* after. >>> >> The fact that it is a string doesn't tell you much about what you can do with >> it. For me, this isn't a problem that the explanation is redundant. > I agree that --format:<string> is quite poor, as type alone does not > give readers any information on what it means and how it is supposed > to look like. Calling it <format-string> does make quite a lot of > sense. > > It is a bit less obvious how much value we get out of <bool-value>, > though. In --opt=<arg> scheme of things, what comes after '=' are > all <value>s, so <bool-value> does not clarify over <bool> like the > way <format-string> clarifies over <string>. > Agreed. Should reroll the patch series?
