On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "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.
Perhaps there was one :-)
> 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.
This leaves no space for speculation and is as clear as it gets :D
> 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?
Yeah, no problem with that.
How do you propose we should integrate this with the
existing usage of parse_options() and OPT_ macros?
I want to keep using it and not redo argv handling
from scratch in builtin-fetch/builtin-merge.
--
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
