On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:44:36PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:42:45PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh > > index 9a3f7930a3..efdb6be3c8 100644 > > --- a/t/test-lib.sh > > +++ b/t/test-lib.sh > > @@ -264,58 +264,65 @@ test "x$TERM" != "xdumb" && ( > > ) && > > color=t > > > > -while test "$#" -ne 0 > > +store_arg_to= > > +prev_opt= > > +for opt > > do > > - case "$1" in > > + if test -n "$store_arg_to" > > + then > > + eval $store_arg_to=\$opt > > + store_arg_to= > > + prev_opt= > > + continue > > + fi > > OK, so this is set for the unstuck options, which then pick up the > option in the next loop iteration. That's perhaps less gross than my > "re-build the options with set --" trick. > > A simple variable set is enough for "-r". In theory we could make this: > > if test -n "$handle_unstuck_arg" > then > eval "$handle_unstuck_arg \$1" > fi > ... > > -r) > handle_unstuck_arg=handle_opt_r ;; > > and handle_opt_r() could do whatever it wants. But I don't really > foresee us adding a lot of new options Yeah, I would refrain from making it too general and fancy with a callback function for now, when there is only a single option that could use it. > (in fact, given that this is just > the internal tests, I am tempted to say that we should just make it > "-r<arg>" for the sake of simplicity and consistency. But maybe somebody > would be annoyed. I have never used "-r" ever myself). I didn't even know what '-r' does... And I agree that changing it to '-r<arg>' would be the best, but this patch series is about adding '--stress', so changing how '-r' gets its mandatory argument (and potentially annoying someone) is beyond the scope, I would say.
