Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] parse-options: add precision handling for PARSE_OPT_CMDMODE

Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

diff --git a/builtin/am.c b/builtin/am.c
index a800003340..c9d925f7b9 100644
--- a/builtin/am.c
+++ b/builtin/am.c

@@ -2406,6 +2406,7 @@ int cmd_am(int argc,
 			.type = OPTION_CALLBACK,
 			.long_name = "show-current-patch",
 			.value = &resume_mode,
+			.precision = sizeof(resume_mode),
 			.argh = "(diff|raw)",
 			.help = N_("show the patch being applied"),
 			.flags = PARSE_OPT_CMDMODE | PARSE_OPT_OPTARG | PARSE_OPT_NONEG | PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP,

diff --git a/parse-options.c b/parse-options.c
index 68ff494492..ddac008a5e 100644
--- a/parse-options.c
+++ b/parse-options.c

@@ -68,6 +68,26 @@ static char *fix_filename(const char *prefix, const char *file)
 		return prefix_filename_except_for_dash(prefix, file);
 }
 
+static int do_get_int_value(const void *value, size_t precision, intmax_t *ret)

Nit: after the fourth patch we have `do_get_int_value()` and
`get_int_value()`, where the major difference is that the latter dies if
we failed to parse the value. It might be easier to discern which is
which if we called them `get_int_value()` and `get_int_value_or_die()`.

Seeing the symmetry between set_int_value() and do_get_int_value(),
I tend to agree that it would be easier to remember what the latter
does if it were named get_int_value().

I am not so sure about _or_die(), though.  The only kind of error
the current get_int_value() detects and acts on is the mismatched
precision bug, which is a programmer error; there is no "die" but
we call "BUG".

get_int_value_with_precision_check() is quite a mouthful, but it is
known that I am bad at naming X-<, so I dunno.