Re: [RFC PATCH] parse-options: disallow double-negations of options starting with no-

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 19, 2017, 21:00 UTC
Message-ID: <20170419210028.sky24qda7kp4pl5y@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA+P7+xqo6BJ8LXy8EVvq0JXPD4r-jZ6boOGT=2XY8SVnWfVMcQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> This is why it's an RFC. I don't really feel that it's too much of a
> problem. As for the reason why I thought it might want a flag itself
> is because of concerns raised earlier that we might have something
> liek
> 
> OPT_BOOL( ... "no-stage" ...)
> OPT_INT(... "stage" ....)
> 
> or something already which might be broken and the only proper way to
> disable no-stage is no-no-stage?
> 
> Is this actually a concern? I thought this was a comment raised by you
> earlier as an objection to a change unless we specifically flagged
> them as OPT_NEGBOOL()

I think the breakage in that case would be caused by "--no-stage" taking over "--stage" as well. And your patch doesn't change that; it happened already in 2012.

Your patch only affects the --no-no- form, which I think we would never want. I don't think it needs callers to trigger it explicitly.

-Peff