From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:15:07 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach/Fix git-pull/git-merge --quiet and --verbose
Message-ID: <7vtzbdjcb8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <4ac8254d0810152254i615bca9dye0aedd8689c946e7@mail.gmail.com>

"Tuncer Ayaz" <tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> "Tuncer Ayaz" <tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> "Tuncer Ayaz" <tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
> Would you prefer to leave -v out?

Not at all.

Perhaps there is a deeper misunderstanding.

It makes perfect sense _at the end user interface level_ to have -v and -q
as two separate options, perhaps with "later one wins" semantics.  Another
possible semantics is "-q and -v are mutually incompatible", but I think
"later one wins" makes it much more usable from the end user's point of view.

The only thing I was objecting to was your repeated (verbose || !quiet)
expression in the _implementation_, which would have been much easier to
read and maintain, if it were expressed as a single variable "verbosity"
that can have one of three values.

IOW,

	static enum { QUIET, NORMAL, VERBOSE } verbosity = NORMAL;
        ...

        	if (!strcmp("--quiet", arg))
                	verbosity = QUIET;
		else if (!strcmp("--verbose", arg))
                	verbosity = VERBOSE;
		else ...

	...
                if (verbosity > QUIET)
                	print informational message;
		if (verbosity > NORMAL)
                	print verbose message;

See?