On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:10:56AM +0000, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:06:04AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > No we can't. And I believe that such a thing is definitely bad practice > > :/ So if you really need to, we will have to add some PARSE_OPT_STICKARG > > or sth alike that would check that the argument was "sticked" to the > > option either with `-wA,B,C` or `--long-opt=A,B,C` depending on the fact > > that an option is short or long. > > Yes, I am not sure if the right solution is to just say "we are changing > how -w works". Because it either must change, or it must be inconsistent > with the rest of the option parsing for the rest of eternity. In fact we have kind of the issue for every single optional argument out there: $ git describe --abbrev HEAD error: option `abbrev' expects a numerical value [...] *ouch* So I believe that with optional arguments we must change the way we do things, and that we _must_ enforce the argument to be sticked in that case. Because this kind of backward incompatibility I totally missed in the first place is unacceptable. Patch on its way. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpT6FkuZTndM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
