Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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
> "=".
You forgot one case.
4. Everybody who does _not_ know that we traditionally did not
support the form would expect "--abbrev 10" and "-n 4" to work.
-
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
