From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add format-patch option --no-name-prefix. Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:21:53 +0100 Message-ID: <4768E2B1.7030405@viscovery.net> References: <1197992574-3464-1-git-send-email-pascal@obry.net> <4767EF5B.3010600@op5.se> <4767F145.3030109@obry.net> <4768DC78.9010304@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Pascal Obry , git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Ericsson , Pascal Obry X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 19 10:22:21 2007 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 1J4v87-00009C-WE for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:22:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752370AbXLSJV5 convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:21:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752336AbXLSJV5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:21:57 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:8003 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752299AbXLSJV4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:21:56 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1J4v7w-0002TF-RR; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:22:09 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A0869F; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:21:53 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <4768DC78.9010304@op5.se> X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Andreas Ericsson schrieb: > Pascal Obry wrote: >> Andreas Ericsson a =E9crit : >>> Pascal Obry wrote: >>>> int thread =3D 0; >>>> + int no_name_prefix =3D 0; >>> Do we not need no double negations, yes? >> >> Not sure, looks clearer to use variable name corresponding to the op= tion >> name to me... Sure. Only that the option name is --name-prefix, and the no- part of i= t is just the negation (that many other long option names also offer). > Perhaps. We just had this discussion on the list where multiple peopl= e had > extended a negative-sounding option. Personally I find it hard to par= se > and bug-prone to write (and edit) something like >=20 > if (!no_prefix) > add_the_prefix();", >=20 > but perhaps that's just me. Oh, no, you are not alone! Johannes "We-don't-need-no-steenkin'-duuble-negations" Sixt