Am 21.07.23 um 22:09 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes: > >> - -D, --no-doubt begins with 'no-' >> + -D, --[no-]no-doubt begins with 'no-' > > Hmph, I really really loved the neat trick to allow "no-doubt" > option to be "positivised" by _dropping_ the leading "no-" at around > 0f1930c5 (parse-options: allow positivation of options starting, > with no-, 2012-02-25). Yeah, if there is a better way to document A) that the "no-" is optional and B) whether it's present by default, I'm all ears. > Many of the above are amusing and served as good demonstration to > show the blast radius, but it seems that most of them should be > marked with PARSE_OPT_NONEG. Hard to say for me -- these are synthetic test cases and I lack context to make that decision. In t0040 (t/helper/test-parse-options.c rather) we do have a few PARSE_OPT_NONEG uses already. In t1502 we need to add some... > >> diff --git a/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh b/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh >> index dd811b7fb4..0a67e2dd4f 100755 >> --- a/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh >> +++ b/t/t1502-rev-parse-parseopt.sh >> @@ -64,33 +64,38 @@ test_expect_success 'test --parseopt help output' ' >> | >> | some-command does foo and bar! >> | >> -| -h, --help show the help >> -| --foo some nifty option --foo >> -| --bar ... some cool option --bar with an argument >> -| -b, --baz a short and long option >> +| -h, --[no-]help show the help > > Indeed it is amusing, but we probably should give PARSE_OPT_NONEG > appropriately, instead of changing the expectations, for many of the > changes we see here, I think. ... and --help is the one obvious choice for me, because --no-help is not supported, of course. But we can use some more dedicated tests of negation and double-negation. René
