"Tuncer Ayaz" <tuncer.ayaz@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Tuncer Ayaz" <tuncer.ayaz@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> "Tuncer Ayaz" <tuncer.ayaz@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
> Would you prefer to leave -v out?
Not at all.
Perhaps there is a deeper misunderstanding.
It makes perfect sense _at the end user interface level_ to have -v and -q
as two separate options, perhaps with "later one wins" semantics. Another
possible semantics is "-q and -v are mutually incompatible", but I think
"later one wins" makes it much more usable from the end user's point of view.
The only thing I was objecting to was your repeated (verbose || !quiet)
expression in the _implementation_, which would have been much easier to
read and maintain, if it were expressed as a single variable "verbosity"
that can have one of three values.
IOW,
static enum { QUIET, NORMAL, VERBOSE } verbosity = NORMAL;
...
if (!strcmp("--quiet", arg))
verbosity = QUIET;
else if (!strcmp("--verbose", arg))
verbosity = VERBOSE;
else ...
...
if (verbosity > QUIET)
print informational message;
if (verbosity > NORMAL)
print verbose message;
See?
--
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
