From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add the diff option --no-defaults Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:34:43 -0400 Message-ID: <20090416083443.GA27399@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090320194930.GB26934@coredump.intra.peff.net> <1237600853-22815-1-git-send-email-keith@cs.ucla.edu> <20090409084903.GA18947@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090410080155.GB32195@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Keith Cascio , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 16 10:36:25 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LuN55-0006vI-L0 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:36:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752098AbZDPIeu (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:34:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751579AbZDPIeu (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:34:50 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:49209 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751383AbZDPIet (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:34:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 1199 invoked by uid 107); 16 Apr 2009 08:34:54 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:34:54 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:34:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:37:42AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > 1. You could loosen (1) above by assuming that --no-defaults will > > never appears as the argument to an option, and therefore any time > > you find it, it should be respected. Thus your first parse is just > > a simple loop looking for the option. > > I go with 1) This feels very hack-ish to me, but perhaps this is a case of "perfect is the enemy of the good". -Peff