Andreas Ericsson schrieb: > Pascal Obry wrote: >> Andreas Ericsson a écrit : >>> Pascal Obry wrote: >>>> int thread = 0; >>>> + int no_name_prefix = 0; >>> Do we not need no double negations, yes? >> >> Not sure, looks clearer to use variable name corresponding to the option >> name to me... Sure. Only that the option name is --name-prefix, and the no- part of it is just the negation (that many other long option names also offer). > Perhaps. We just had this discussion on the list where multiple people had > extended a negative-sounding option. Personally I find it hard to parse > and bug-prone to write (and edit) something like > > if (!no_prefix) > add_the_prefix();", > > but perhaps that's just me. Oh, no, you are not alone! Johannes "We-don't-need-no-steenkin'-duuble-negations" Sixt - 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
