On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:52:29AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> So in short, for an option that takes optional option-argument:
I agree with everything you said, except...
> - if it is given as "--long-name", and there is a next word, see if
> that is plausible as its argument. Get it and signal the caller
> you consumed it, if it is. Ignore it and signal the caller you
> didn't, if it isn't.
This "plausible" makes me a little nervous, and I wonder why we want to
support this at all. Is it
1. We have traditionally supported "--abbrev 10"? I don't think this
is the case.
2. Consistency with "--non-optional-arg foo"? Do we have any such
non-optional long arguments? I didn't see any; I think we stick
with --non-optional-arg=foo everywhere.
3. More convenience to the user? I don't see how " " is easier than
"=".
> - if it is given as "-s", and there is a next word, and if the option
> has long format counterpart as well, then see if the next word is
> plausible as its argument. Get it and signal the caller you
> consumed it, if it is. Ignore it and signal the caller you didn't,
> if it isn't.
Similarly, what is the goal here?
1. Have we ever supported "-s foo"? Not for -B/-M/-C, nor for
shortlog's -w.
2. This would add consistency to non-optional arguments.
3. It's longer to type.
So I see a slight case for "-s foo", but none at all for "--long foo".
-Peff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
