Hey Junio,
>
> See the 3-patch series I just sent out. I didn't think it through
> very carefully (especially the error message the other caller
> produces), but the whole thing _smells_ correct to me.
Okay, got it! I will write-up those changes, and make sure nothing bad
happens. (Also, the one
Siddharth Kannan writes:
> This "changing the order" gave me the idea to change the flow. I tried to
> implement the above steps without touching the function handle_revision_opt.
> By
> inserting the handle_revision_arg call just before calling
> handle_revision_opt.
Changing the order is cha
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 01:08:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Siddharth Kannan writes:
>
> > Um, I am sorry, but I feel that decrementing left, and incrementing it
> > again is
> > also confusing.
>
> Yes, but it is no more confusing than your original "left--".
> ...
>
> * If it is an op
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Such a change to handle_revision_opt() unfortunately affects other
> callers of the function, so it may not be worth it, and I think
> "decrement and then increment, because this codepath wants to check
> to see something that may ordinarily be clasified as an unknown
> o
Siddharth Kannan writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 03:35:47PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> I am wondering if writing it like the following is easier to
>> understand. I had a hard time figuring out what you are trying to
>> do, partly because "args" is quite a misnomer---implying "how many
Hey Junio,
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 03:35:47PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> So the difference is just "--left" (by the way, our codebase seem to
> prefer "left--" when there is no difference between pre- or post-
> decrement/increment) that adjusts the slot in argv[] where the next
> unknown argum
Siddharth Kannan writes:
> @@ -2234,11 +2235,18 @@ int setup_revisions(int argc, const char **argv,
> struct rev_info *revs, struct s
> }
> if (opts < 0)
> exit(128);
> - continue;
> +
> +
setup_revisions used to consider any argument starting with "-" to be either a
valid option or nothing at all. This patch will teach it to check if the
argument is a revision before declaring that it is nothing at all.
Before this patch, handle_revision_arg was not called for arguments starting
wi
8 matches
Mail list logo
