On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 07:52:29PM +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > After having written this mail 4 time already, I came up with an idea I
> > kind of like: like find, we could make {} be a placeholder for the
> > "default" argument. For example:
> >
> > $ git foo --abbrev {} 10
> > $ git log -M {} 1
> > ...
> >
> > {} would have the same semantics as your --long-opt-default. It tells the
> > option parser that "no there isn't anything to grok for that command thank you
> > very much". Of course if for some reason you really want to pass "{}" to the
> > command, the stuck form holds:
> >
> > $ git foo --long-opt={}
> > $ git foo -o{}
> >
> > What do you think ?
>
> 1. {} means a completely different thing to find ("place the real value
> here"); there is no similarity. I would strongly oppose to it. If
okay we could make it be '_', but …
> you want to invoke opt with default but still want to pass "{}" as an
> argument unrelated to that opt, you would do "--opt={} {}". That's
> double ugly.
Actually that would be --opt {} {} (or --opt _ _) and indeed it's not
very nice (euphemism for it sucks hard).
I like the *-default idea a lot, but it's not really useful if we cannot
fix the single letter switches at the same time. I had the idea to use !
(or any other less shell-magical char) like this: --abbrev! but it
doesn't fly a lot better for single letter switches.
Well maybe it's not worth fighting any longer, we should stick to the
stuck form then :)
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpKIpzVZeM2B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
