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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 17, 2007, 20:42 UTC
Message-ID: <7vhcih6oj8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071217203143.GA2105@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 21 quoted lines

> 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.
>   2. Consistency with "--non-optional-arg foo"? Do we have any such
>      non-optional long arguments? I didn't see any; I think we stick
>      with --non-optional-arg=foo everywhere.
>   3. More convenience to the user? I don't see how " " is easier than
>      "=".

You forgot one case.

    4. Everybody who does _not_ know that we traditionally did not
       support the form would expect "--abbrev 10" and "-n 4" to work.