From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@talktalk.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 13:38:59 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #01; Wed, 10)
Message-ID: <9521f0a8-efa7-46d7-1aeb-aea700fc2fed@talktalk.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbm7zb81z.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On 12/10/2018 14:36, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@talktalk.net> writes:
> 
>> It would be nice if the parsing used starts_with(option_name, user_text)
>> rather than strcmp() as well. Also I think --color-moved=no is valid as
>> a synonym of --no-color-moved but --color-moved-ws=no is not supported.
> 
> I am not sure about starts_with().  Do you mean we should accept
> "--color-mo", as that is a prefix of "--color-moved" that is not
> shared with any existing option, until we gain a different option
> "--color-more"?

I was thinking of the option arguments rather than the option names 
although being able to abbreviate the names in the same way as the 
commands that parse_options() would be good too (I seem to remember 
someone saying they had some rough patches to use parse_options() for 
diff and log in a discussion of adding completion support to 
parse_options())

> If you mean "--color-moved-ws=no" (or "--no-color-moved-ws") as a
> way to countermand an earlier --color-moved-ws=<something> on the
> command line, I fully agree that it is a good idea.

Oh I assumed --no-color-moved-ws was allowed but it isn't it. Allowing 
--color-moved-ws=no as well would match what is allowed for 
--color-moved. I'll try and look at that.

Best Wishes

Phillip