From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] parseopt: introduce OPT_RECURSE to specify shared options
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:53:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071105165359.GC6205@artemis.corp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711051623450.4362@racer.site>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2297 bytes --]
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 04:29:43PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > >
> > > After kicking this around a bit more on IRC, we had another idea.
> > > Instead of introducing OPT_RECURSE(), do something like OPT__QUIET(),
> > > only this time in diff.h: ....
> >
> > I think the preprocessor approach would tend to be simpler, which is an
> > advantage. But whichever approach is chosen, I think one important issue
> > is to make sure that options that *hide* other options are correctly
> > handled in the help printout..
>
> Yep. See my patch 3/3, which just used a char[256] for the short names,
> and a path-list for the long names.
>
> > But that's an implementation issue. The same certainly *can* be done
> > with a recursive setup, just passing a linked list of what the earlier
> > levels were (which is what we do in other places). And it's not like the
> > recursion is going to be very deep or complex.
>
> Exactly.
>
> The more pressing issue is that we have pointers in the option structure,
> which point back to the variables expected to hold the option values.
>
> The recurse approach would need fixing up those (or some ugly copying of
> a struct diff_options).
>
> But the preprocessor approach means wasting space (since we basically have
> the same options in different builtins),
The "lost" space is the number of options x sizeof(struct option), the
latter being (if I'm correct):
on i386: 9 * 4 = 36 octets
on amd64: 4 x 2 + 8 * 4 + 8 (padding) + 8 * 2 = 64 octets.
It's not even near being an issue :)
> and it means that the callback
> functions needed to parse e.g. the diff colour names need to be public.
> Which is not the worst thing, of course.
Well it's certainly less ugly than copying the diff_options or
reseting it or anything like that. I don't care if we need to make a
couple of opt-parsing function public more than what we could have
needed.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-05 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-05 12:03 proposal for an OPTION_SUBARRAY (recursive parser) Pierre Habouzit
2007-11-05 12:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] parse-options: abbreviation engine fix Pierre Habouzit
2007-11-05 12:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] Some better parse-options documentation Pierre Habouzit
2007-11-05 12:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] Add OPTION_BASEOFFSET/OPTION_SUBARRAY Pierre Habouzit
2007-11-05 12:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] Implement OPTION_SUBARRAY handling Pierre Habouzit
2007-11-05 12:34 ` [PATCH] parse-options: abbreviation engine fix Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-05 12:38 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-05 13:15 ` [PATCH 1/3] " Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-05 13:15 ` [PATCH 2/3] parseopt: introduce OPT_RECURSE to specify shared options Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-05 13:46 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-05 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-11-05 16:29 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-05 16:53 ` Pierre Habouzit [this message]
2007-11-05 21:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-05 22:14 ` Pierre Habouzit
2007-11-05 13:15 ` [PATCH 3/3] parseopt: do not list options with the same name twice Johannes Schindelin
2007-11-05 12:59 ` [PATCH] parse-options: abbreviation engine fix Pierre Habouzit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071105165359.GC6205@artemis.corp \
--to=madcoder@debian.org \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).