Re: [PATCH] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation

> Jean-Noël Avila <avila.jn@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> +	/* Dry run won't remove anything, so requiring force makes no sense */
>>> +	if(dry_run)
>>> +		require_force = 0;
>
> Style.  "if (dry_run)".

>
> Getting rid of "config_set", which was an extra variable that kept
> track of where "force" came from, does make the logic cleaner, I
> guess.  What we want to happen is that one of -i/-n/-f is required
> when clean.requireForce is *not* unset (i.e. 0 <= require_force).
>
>>> +	if (!force && !interactive) {
>
> The require-force takes effect only when neither force or
> interactive is given, so the new code structure puts the above
> obvious conditional around "do we complain due to requireForce?"
> logic.  Sensible.
>
>>> +		if (require_force > 0)
>>> +			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>>> +				  "refusing to clean"));
>
> If it is explicitly set, we get this message.  And ...
>
>>> +		else if (require_force < 0)
>>> +			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>>>  				  "refusing to clean"));
>
> ... if it is set due to default (in other words, if it is not unset), we
> get this message.
>
> As you said, I do not think it matters too much either way to the
> end-users where the truth setting of clean.requireForce came from,
> either due to the default or the user explicitly configuring.  So
> unifying to a single message may be helpful to both readers and
> translators.
>
> 	clean.requireForce is true; unless interactive, -f is required
>
> might be a bit shorter and more to the point.

>> The last two cases can be coalesced into a single case (the last one),
>> because the difference in the messages does not bring more information
>> to the user.
>
> Yeah.