On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 08:17:28PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > would let us do:
> >
> > if (match_opt(arg, "--early-output"), &optarg)) {
> > int count = optarg ? atoi(optarg) : 100;
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > which is a little nicer and could maybe help other options (I didn't see
> > any, though).
>
> Besides '--show-linear-break' and '--pretty', other options that could
> benefit from this, i.e. long options with an optional argument, are
> '--expand-tabs', '--abbrev' and '--no-walk'. These are handled
> differently than '--early--output' and '--show-linear-break': each is
> covered by two if branches, one with and one without the optional
> argument, i.e.:
>
> } else if (!strcmp(arg, "--option")) {
> ...
> } else if (starts_with(arg, "--option=")) {
> ...
> } else ...
I think those multi-branch cases end up as an improvement with a helper:
if (match_opt(arg, "--no-walk", &optarg)) {
if (!optarg || !strcmp(optarg, "sorted"))
revs->no_walk = REVISION_WALK_NO_WALK_SORTED;
else if (!strcmp(optarg, "unsorted"))
revs->no_walk = REVISION_WALK_NO_WALK_UNSORTED;
else
return error(...);
}
> '--pretty=' couldn't benefit, though, because it is special in that
> it's equivalent with '--format=', and the two are handled in the same
> branch.
I think you could still handle them both in the same branch, like:
if (match_opt(arg, "--pretty", &optarg) ||
skip_prefix(arg, "--format=", &optarg)) {
revs->verbose_header = 1;
revs->pretty-given = 1;
/* OK to pass NULL for --pretty case */
get_commit_format(optarg, revs);
}
> So inherently there are a few repeated option names and variable
> assignments, and that's not so good. However, refactoring these to
> use match_opt() adds 40% more lines than it removes and, more
> importantly, increases the number of nested conditions. Subjectively
> I don't think it's better, so I went with the "follow the conventions
> of the surrounding code" rule for the update.
I care less about lines of boilerplate code and more about repeated
logic. In the --pretty example above, the first two lines of the block
are common to both --pretty and --pretty=. If they ever need to change,
somebody has to update two spots.
Anyway. I certainly don't insist on you working on this, especially if
you don't agree with the aesthetics. Just fixing the actual bugs would
be sufficient for my review. ;)
> As far as I can tell, parse-options doesn't handle options with an
> optional argument by itself, but only with callback functions, so it
> is no help here as it is.
There's a flag, PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, which would do what you want. But I
agree that converting the whole thing to parse-options would be a lot of
work (quite a few of these really aren't just "this is a string", but
would need independent callback functions.
-Peff
