Re: [PATCH 4/4] Implement git commit and status as a builtin commands.

On 2007.11.05 23:18:36 +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:

quoted

On 2007.11.05 13:57:53 -0500, Kristian H?gsberg wrote:

quoted

The shell script just has

case "$all,$interactive,$also,$#" in
*t,*t,*)
        die "Cannot use -a, --interactive or -i at the same time." ;;

which doesn't seem to care about the value of $also.  As far as I 
understand git commit, it doesn't make sense to pass any of -a, -i, -o 
or --interactive at the same time so I guess I could join the checks

Note that there are only two commas. The asterisks catch everything and
$# won't be "t", so that catches anything with at least two t's.

So shouldn't it be

	if (!!all + !!interactive + !!also > 1)

Hmm?

Ah, yeah, that's the short and sweet version, I always forget about the
conversion to bool giving you 0/1 values... ;-)

Note though, that Kristian had a similar check at the end of his email,
that included "only" (but lacked the bool conversion). The original
reason why I thought that it would be better was that for example
"git commit --all --only foo" didn't care about "only" at all. But that
actually was because the --all + paths usage check was broken. So the
fixed version actually refuses to use accept that, but with a (IMHO) not
so good error message:

$ git commit -a -o file
Paths with -a does not make sense.

Given that some people are used to just pass -a all the time, they might
just automatically pass it together with -o. And I think that we
actually want to tell them that -a + -o makes no sense instead. Just
like we do for -a + -i, which is kind of the complementary usage error.

So I'd go for a correct version of Kristian's suggestion:

if (!!also + !!only + !!all + !!interactive > 1)
	die("Only one of --include/--only/--all/--interactive can be used.");

Björn