On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Not necessarily worth a re-roll.
>>
>> Not that it matters in this case, but just as a bit of Perl rx pedantry,
>> yes his is tighter & more correct. You didn't consider how "." interacts
>> with newlines:
>>
>> $ perl -wE 'my @rx = (qr/^--./, qr/^--.+$/, qr/^--./m, qr/^--.+$/m,
>> qr/^--./s, qr/^--.+$/s); for (@rx) { my $s = "--foo\n--bar"; say $_, "\t",
>> ($s =~ $_ ? 1 : 0) }'
>> (?^u:^--.) 1
>> (?^u:^--.+$) 0
>> (?^um:^--.) 1
>> (?^um:^--.+$) 1
>> (?^us:^--.) 1
>> (?^us:^--.+$) 1
>>
>> I don't think it matters here, not like someone will pass \n in options
>> to aggregate.perl...
>
> Hmph, do we want the command not to barf when "--foo\n--bar" is
> given from the command line and we cannot find such an option?
>
> I thought that the location the match under discussion is used does
> want to see a hit with any option looking string that begins with
> double dashes. I would have expected "tigher and hence incorrect",
> in other words.
>
> Somewhat puzzled...
I guess it might be better at this point to just "use Getopt::Long;"
(along with "Getopt::Long::Configure qw/ pass_through /;") as git
send-email does. It might avoid mistakes and subtle discussions like
the above.
Thanks for the reviews,
Christian.
