Re: [PATCH 2/3] builtins: utilize startup_info->help where possible
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 20, 2010, 01:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTinvSKAyXkzjUgxvrDWvuHWpa+46XVxTu=tWck53@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20101019172953.GC25139@burratino>
2010/10/20 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > >> It helps reduce false alarms while I'm looking for "git foo -h" code >> path that accesses repository. > > Not sure I understand. Is the idea that use of startup_info->help > is a marker for "I've checked this code path"? > > If that were the only reason, I don't think I'd like the idea.
That. And simpler check. I mean "if (startup_info->help)" takes a tiny bit less energy for me to understand than "if (argc == 2 && argv[1] == "-h")". It's also good for grepping.
> As it is, I'm a bit conflicted: what if we decide to short-circuit > "git foo --help-all" in the future just like we short-circuit > "git foo -h" now? Would that require a separate flag?
As long as it's help related, startup_info->help can be turned to a bit set. Although I'm not sure if --help-all or any other option will be implemented anytime soon. Remember it has to be implemented for _all_ builtin commands, or we need to introduce NO_DASH_H in run_builtin() to skip the shortcut for commands that do not support it.
Show 13 quoted lines
> In other words, I'm not sure startup_info->help is a good abstraction.
> Maybe (modulo names) it would be better to do
>
> struct startup_info {
> ...
> const char *short_circuit; /* "-h", "--help-all", "--no-index", or NULL */
> };
>
> and use
>
> if (!strcmp(startup_info->short_circuit, "-h"))
>
> to allow relaxing the argc == 2 check later?Can it be relaxed later when someone comes up with "--help-all" or something?
-- Duy