On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:42:04PM +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:31:43PM +0000, Jeff King wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, that's why the restriction bugs me a bit too. Err I misread your point, _yes_ we do, see builtin-show-ref.c, or see --start-number in builtin-log.c. There is a precedent. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpThaNJViRch.pgp
Description: PGP signature
