From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:21:53 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add format-patch option --no-name-prefix.
Message-ID: <4768E2B1.7030405@viscovery.net>
In-Reply-To: <4768DC78.9010304@op5.se>

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