Web lists-archives.com

Re: [RFC PATCH] parse-options: disallow double-negations of options starting with no-

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.