From: Bo Yang Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:49:41 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/13] parse the -L options Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vbpab2de5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Hi Junio, On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>       if (argc == 2 && !strcmp(argv[1], "-h")) >>               usage(builtin_log_usage); >> + >> +     parse_options_start(&ctx, argc, argv, prefix, PARSE_OPT_KEEP_DASHDASH | >> +                     PARSE_OPT_KEEP_ARGV0 | PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION); >> +     for (;;) { >> +             switch (parse_options_step(&ctx, options, log_opt_usage)) { >> +             case PARSE_OPT_HELP: >> +                     exit(129); >> +             case PARSE_OPT_DONE: >> +                     goto parse_done; >> +             case PARSE_OPT_NON_OPTION: >> +                     path = parse_options_current(&ctx); >> +                     pathspec = prefix_path(prefix, prefix ? strlen(prefix) : 0, path); >> +                     range->spec = alloc_filespec(pathspec); >> +                     free((void *)pathspec); >> +                     if (range->nr == 0) { >> +                             if(range->next) { >> +                                     die("Path %s need a -L option\n" >> +                                     "If you want follow the history of the whole file " >> +                                     "whether to using 'git log' without -L or using " >> +                                     "'git log -L 1,$ '", range->spec->path); >> +                             } else { >> +                                     parse_options_next(&ctx, 1); >> +                                     continue; > > This loop smells bad. > > When "-L n,m" appears on the command line, log_line_range_callback() would > be called and would eat n,m (which is correct), but at that point you > would not just want to be prepared to accept a non-option ("path" in "-L > n,m path"), but actually would want to force the user to give a path, no? > IOW, isn't "git log -L n,m -U20" an error, unless "-U20" is a filename > that the user wants to track? > > I somehow suspect that futzing with STOP_AT_NON_OPTION (done in the first > two patches in the series) to parse "-L n,m path" is a misguided design > attempt.  Shouldn't you be instead giving a support for option callback to > take more than one argument to do this? > >> +                             } >> +                     } >> +                     struct diff_line_range *r = xmalloc(sizeof(*r)); > > decl-after-statement, but at this point it may be moot as I am doubting > the higher-level design of this option parser now. > The point is that, the syntax we support is: -L n1,m1 -L n2,m2 pathspec1 -L n3,m3 pathspec2 There can be multiple -L options for one pathspec, so I think the STOP_AT_NON_OPTION way is better. -- Regards! Bo ---------------------------- My blog: http://blog.morebits.org Why Git: http://www.whygitisbetterthanx.com/