Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Yeah, I agree it is funny to have a "maybe noop, maybe exit" function.
> Perhaps a different name would help? I'd expect show_usage_help() to
> always do what the name says. Maybe check_help_option() or something?
maybe_show_usage_help()?
>> +void show_usage_help(int ac, const char **av,
>> + const char * const *usagestr,
>> + const struct option *opts)
>> +{
>> + if (ac == 2 && !strcmp(av[1], "-h")) {
>> + usage_with_options_internal(NULL, usagestr, opts, 0, 0);
>> + exit(0);
>> + }
>> +}
>
> I think parse-options will exit(129) in this case, and that's what t0012
> insists upon.
Yeah, but the test can be adjusted to updated reality if needed.
In this case, the command is doing what the end-user asked it to do,
and if we were writing the system from scratch, 0 would certainly be
the right exit status in this case. If hit usage_with_options()
because the command line option supplied by the user was nonsense,
we should exit with non-zero, but I am not sure if exit(129) is a
good idea here.
