Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] config: Use parseopt.

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +     if (HAS_MULTI_BITS(actions)) {
>> +             error("only one action at a time.");
>> +             usage_with_options(builtin_config_usage, builtin_config_options);
>
> My initial reaction was:
>
>        Can we easily say "--get and --getall are mutually incompatible"?
>
> and knowing that it would take much more code, the second reaction was:
>
>        Does the user know what we mean by "action"?
>
> Since the answer to this is "Yes, the usage message comes from parseopt
> and there is a clear categorization", I think the message is good enough.
>
> What happens when the user says "config --get --get-colorbool user.name"?
> Is it an error?  Is it diagnosed as an error?
>
> It probably is easy to fix it by defining two bits of fake actions and do:
>
>        if (get_color_slot)
>                actions |= ACTION_GET_COLOR;
>        if (get_colorbool_slot)
>                actions |= ACTION_GET_COLORBOOL;
>
> immediately before this HAS_MULTI_BITS check.
>
> I know I suggested these to are type-like, but I realize that these two
> are better categorized as actions tied to a specific type (color), as you
> had in your earlier round.

>> +     if (actions == 0)
>> +             switch (argc) {
>> +             case 1: actions |= ACTION_GET; break;
>> +             case 2: actions |= ACTION_ADD; break;
>> +             case 3: actions |= ACTION_REPLACE_ALL; break;
>
> Straight assignment, not ORing-in please.  It wastes a few seconds from
> the reader wondering what other bits in the variable "actions" are used
> for things other than ACTION_* (the answer is none).
>
> Similarly, later conditions:
>
>> +     if (actions & ACTION_LIST) {
>
> would read better if they used equality == checks.