Re: [PATCH] builtin-tag: fix fallouts from recent parsopt restriction.

From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
Date: Dec 17, 2007, 21:01 UTC
Message-ID: <20071217210116.GB13004@artemis.madism.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071217204204.GA13004@artemis.madism.org>

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:42:04PM +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:31:43PM +0000, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:52:29AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 
> > > So in short, for an option that takes optional option-argument:
> > 
> > I agree with everything you said, except...
> > 
> > >    - if it is given as "--long-name", and there is a next word, see if
> > >      that is plausible as its argument.  Get it and signal the caller
> > >      you consumed it, if it is.  Ignore it and signal the caller you
> > >      didn't, if it isn't.
> > 
> > This "plausible" makes me a little nervous, and I wonder why we want to
> > support this at all. Is it
> > 
> >   1. We have traditionally supported "--abbrev 10"? I don't think this
> >      is the case.
> 
>   Yes, that's why the restriction bugs me a bit too.

  Err I misread your point, _yes_ we do, see builtin-show-ref.c, or see
--start-number in builtin-log.c. There is a precedent.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org