Re: [PATCH] Add a simple option parser.

On jeu, oct 04, 2007 at 03:15:32 +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 02:57:58PM +0000, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:

quoted

I'm not sure - we can go with the current proposal and add new options
types and probably the callback option type I suggested as we go.  I
don't want to block builtin-commit on figuring out what the perfect
option parser should look like and what I sent out earlier work for
commit.  I think the way you handled the strbuf rewrites worked pretty
well; extending and rewriting the API as you put it to use in more and
more places.  We can do the same thing with parse_options().

  Of course we can do that, or junio said that some people talked about
popt some time ago. I understand that you don't want to block the
git-commit work, but doing things right from the beginning is often a
big win on the long term.

  I don't know popt, and I don't know if it has sufficient expressivity.
For sure I don't like getopt_long APIs at all, so if popt is as
cumbersome, rolling our own based on the current parse_options you
propose is probably a good choice.

  Okay, popt seems to be quite complicated, and depends upon gettext
(which we may require as per survey results, but right now it seems a
useless dependency). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's very powerful,
but again, I believe we can have a 200 line ad-hoc module that fits what
git really needs, the less cumbersome way.

  So well, I'd be (I'm not in position to decide anything btw ;p) in
favor of pursuing the work into git-commit like you did, and ASAP it
gets merged into next, I'm definitely willing to pursue a refactoring to
use it (now that strbufs seems to have been used where needed).

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org