Re: [PATCH] Add format-patch option --no-name-prefix.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux