From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7EA1FE90 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:23:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967807AbdDSVXM (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:23:12 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]:36311 "EHLO mail-lf0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967718AbdDSVXJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:23:09 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c80so19119554lfh.3 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:23:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vAU1JEqNf2ypb2Z5pAX7i+gdshiwn8eodcVwizOhtpw=; b=atZrwK2lG3yqQ5svY3EGGSOmkM7qxjbtYFWLwbjLj4e/vlwqu8TUX2HW3LB88KGgMW DMEVzzpyjRcVEJXwxf+KL/ZuwV9fLPlB3/XOyWinqmy3Ir3/BWjqh0U6UbKviGYAYLLG HPrdX1jbcXYGwhozZGpg+UEzUimzVBKFBOky/H2ItsJgEVU/FHSFnt3474CYb3P6Q9f+ sUD1pEsNFta08bJ2cnPufkhVW/WUurZ0TyMmfbpQLvINIwReWJZYyO1o83rDpilhhHuS 9qK5+ewZeICMQvYosXNZeso3+S+5lWhPq96sQXTxp0kY5qvBvjpFxRmZO4wFLlejNFKQ Re+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vAU1JEqNf2ypb2Z5pAX7i+gdshiwn8eodcVwizOhtpw=; b=dgez94d+fKbDxzEYjZSExo+vowvaIGUgf/JG8TnZ32NOOkW45hp1xk77YfvGXD7BNG cjx8YxR1b0uOeX3YyqQykhdZflmgV/V+VW0rNAH9FdOjc6ls6qckroJSpZar7D79DG8D Et7sJPGr1JkJYgJblcD6BVm1qHm29T6Qf2VFVpQfcN3IxgMV4JcNX2i3x2/Qvq7LFf7j kVk7B+2cH5kAi63Kb9BG5Unt7WEM66Zg5P23WOo5SsP3xbx1k5Wq09mE6w+P2/reSlpf o1Xwx62eHFQDekV9mJWg1C4KbsYECu1fHRdAy/Xwd71e+2qWHn9h4Pji43cJfoUZ93J7 SjJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4CUK5dFuK2+5EUnA/iEteZf9AVYTji03WBwKzQjyTOx5lWo03e 2fvycteNNOC8sn/TeutKgNWd9WYYRw== X-Received: by 10.46.22.4 with SMTP id w4mr1650683ljd.123.1492636987977; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:23:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.17.155 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:22:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170419210028.sky24qda7kp4pl5y@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170419090820.20279-1-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <20170419151005.wolvxiacjqxoqrq3@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170419210028.sky24qda7kp4pl5y@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Jacob Keller Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:22:47 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] parse-options: disallow double-negations of options starting with no- To: Jeff King Cc: Jacob Keller , Git mailing list , Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , =?UTF-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9_Scharfe?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> This is why it's an RFC. I don't really feel that it's too much of a >> problem. As for the reason why I thought it might want a flag itself >> is because of concerns raised earlier that we might have something >> liek >> >> OPT_BOOL( ... "no-stage" ...) >> OPT_INT(... "stage" ....) >> >> or something already which might be broken and the only proper way to >> disable no-stage is no-no-stage? >> >> Is this actually a concern? I thought this was a comment raised by you >> earlier as an objection to a change unless we specifically flagged >> them as OPT_NEGBOOL() > > I think the breakage in that case would be caused by "--no-stage" taking > over "--stage" as well. And your patch doesn't change that; it happened > already in 2012. > > Your patch only affects the --no-no- form, which I think we would never > want. I don't think it needs callers to trigger it explicitly. > > -Peff Right, I was just thinking in the weird cause were we *do* have a "no-option" that does want the "no-no-option" to negate it. Maybe this isn't ever a thing and we don't need to worry at all..? Thanks, Jake