Re: [PATCH] builtin-tag: fix fallouts from recent parsopt restriction.

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:52:29AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

So in short, for an option that takes optional option-argument:

I agree with everything you said, except...

quoted

   - if it is given as "--long-name", and there is a next word, see if
     that is plausible as its argument.  Get it and signal the caller
     you consumed it, if it is.  Ignore it and signal the caller you
     didn't, if it isn't.

This "plausible" makes me a little nervous, and I wonder why we want to
support this at all. Is it

  1. We have traditionally supported "--abbrev 10"? I don't think this
     is the case.
  2. Consistency with "--non-optional-arg foo"? Do we have any such
     non-optional long arguments? I didn't see any; I think we stick
     with --non-optional-arg=foo everywhere.
  3. More convenience to the user? I don't see how " " is easier than
     "=".

You forgot one case.

    4. Everybody who does _not_ know that we traditionally did not
       support the form would expect "--abbrev 10" and "-n 4" to work.