Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
+ if (HAS_MULTI_BITS(actions)) {
+ error("only one action at a time.");
+ usage_with_options(builtin_config_usage, builtin_config_options);
My initial reaction was:
Can we easily say "--get and --getall are mutually incompatible"?
and knowing that it would take much more code, the second reaction was:
Does the user know what we mean by "action"?
Since the answer to this is "Yes, the usage message comes from parseopt
and there is a clear categorization", I think the message is good enough.
What happens when the user says "config --get --get-colorbool user.name"?
Is it an error? Is it diagnosed as an error?
It probably is easy to fix it by defining two bits of fake actions and do:
if (get_color_slot)
actions |= ACTION_GET_COLOR;
if (get_colorbool_slot)
actions |= ACTION_GET_COLORBOOL;
immediately before this HAS_MULTI_BITS check.
I know I suggested these to are type-like, but I realize that these two
are better categorized as actions tied to a specific type (color), as you
had in your earlier round.
+ if (actions == 0)
+ switch (argc) {
+ case 1: actions |= ACTION_GET; break;
+ case 2: actions |= ACTION_ADD; break;
+ case 3: actions |= ACTION_REPLACE_ALL; break;
Straight assignment, not ORing-in please. It wastes a few seconds from
the reader wondering what other bits in the variable "actions" are used
for things other than ACTION_* (the answer is none).
Similarly, later conditions:
+ if (actions & ACTION_LIST) {
would read better if they used equality == checks.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
+ if (HAS_MULTI_BITS(actions)) {
+ error("only one action at a time.");
+ usage_with_options(builtin_config_usage, builtin_config_options);
My initial reaction was:
Can we easily say "--get and --getall are mutually incompatible"?
and knowing that it would take much more code, the second reaction was:
Does the user know what we mean by "action"?
Since the answer to this is "Yes, the usage message comes from parseopt
and there is a clear categorization", I think the message is good enough.
What happens when the user says "config --get --get-colorbool user.name"?
Is it an error? Is it diagnosed as an error?
It probably is easy to fix it by defining two bits of fake actions and do:
if (get_color_slot)
actions |= ACTION_GET_COLOR;
if (get_colorbool_slot)
actions |= ACTION_GET_COLORBOOL;
immediately before this HAS_MULTI_BITS check.
I know I suggested these to are type-like, but I realize that these two
are better categorized as actions tied to a specific type (color), as you
had in your earlier round.
All right, done.
quoted
+ if (actions == 0)
+ switch (argc) {
+ case 1: actions |= ACTION_GET; break;
+ case 2: actions |= ACTION_ADD; break;
+ case 3: actions |= ACTION_REPLACE_ALL; break;
Straight assignment, not ORing-in please. It wastes a few seconds from
the reader wondering what other bits in the variable "actions" are used
for things other than ACTION_* (the answer is none).
Similarly, later conditions:
quoted
+ if (actions & ACTION_LIST) {
would read better if they used equality == checks.
Cool, I was worried those where not logical to the reader but I
couldn't think of a better solution... this one looks much better!
I've also made the same change for the 'types' variable in a later patch.
--
Felipe Contreras