Re: [PATCH 4/3] parse-options: disallow --no-no-sth
- From
René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
- Date
- Feb 29, 2012, 18:06 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4F4E6912.7060204@lsrfire.ath.cx>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vlinmy80x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Am 28.02.2012 22:15, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Show 9 quoted lines
> René Scharfe<rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes: > >> Now that options whose definition starts with "no-" can be negated >> by removing said "no-", there is no need anymore to allow them to >> be negated by adding a second "no-", which just looks silly. > > Thanks. But accepting them silently and do what the user would have > expected, especially if we do not advertise it, would not hurt anybody, > no?
Yes, that's why I didn't include this fourth patch from the beginning. However, I understood your comment "Among the existing 13 that you listed, I do not think there is any that tempts any existing user to ask for negation with "--no-no-foo" form, so I think we should be Ok." to mean that nobody uses the double-no form of the existing negative options anyway, and therefore we should disallow it.
Please drop this extra patch if I misunderstood you, in order to keep backward compatibility.
René