From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:28:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 12/12] bisect--helper: `get_terms` & `bisect_terms` shell function in C
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD2m07QxnEQr+-P0EJoyeORAUjrow8irQK_1U48h0BQD8A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh9bd7j6k.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> And why are the defines 1,2,4,8 ?
>>> It looks as if a #define bitmap may be a better choice here ?
>>> How do we do these kind of bit-wise opions otherwise ?
>
> We might want to ask if these should even be bitwise option.  A word
> with individually controllable bits (i.e. "flag word") makes sense
> only when the bits within it are largely independent.  But the code
> does this pretty much upfront:
>
>>>> +       if (term_defined != 0 && term_defined != TERM_BAD &&
>>>> +           term_defined != TERM_GOOD && term_defined != TERM_NEW &&
>>>> +           term_defined != TERM_OLD)
>>>> +               die(_("only one option among --term-bad, --term-good, "
>>>> +                     "--term-new and --term-old can be used."));
>
> which is a very strong indication that these bits are not.
>
> I suspect that OPTION_CMDMODE would be a better choice to group
> these four options and mark them mutually incompatible automatically
> than OPT_BIT?

I must say that Pranit used that at one point, but it felt weird to me
to use that for things that is not really a command.