Am 24.07.23 um 20:51 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
René Scharfe [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Am 21.07.23 um 22:09 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
quoted
René Scharfe [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
- -D, --no-doubt begins with 'no-'
+ -D, --[no-]no-doubt begins with 'no-'
Hmph, I really really loved the neat trick to allow "no-doubt"
option to be "positivised" by _dropping_ the leading "no-" at around
0f1930c5 (parse-options: allow positivation of options starting,
with no-, 2012-02-25).
Yeah, if there is a better way to document A) that the "no-" is optional
and B) whether it's present by default, I'm all ears.
Some options take "no-" prefix while some others do not, so
indicating that "this can take negative forms" vs "this do not take
negative forms" by "--[no-]xyzzy" and "--frotz" makes sense.
Yikes. There are tons of options whose names begin with "no-" and
marked PARSE_OPT_NONEG, so "an option '--no-nitfol' that does not
have the 'no-' part in [brackets] can drop 'no-' to make it
positive" would not fly as a rule/convention.
If we do not mind getting longer, we could say
-D, --no-doubt, --doubt
and explain in the description that --no-doubt is the same as -D and
--doubt is the default. It is making the developers responsible for
clarify, which is not very satisfying.
Adjusting all explanations manually seems quite tedious.
We may not reject "--no-no-doubt" but with the positivization
support, double negation is not something we'd encourage without
feeling embarrassed.
Right. Perhaps --[[no-]no-]doubt? Looks a bit silly with its nested
brackets, but it's more correct, because it documents all three accepted
forms, including the no-less one.
René