Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] parse-options: warn developers on negated options




Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>   This patch disallows all no- options, but we could be more open and allow
>   --no-options that have the NO_NEG bit set.

"--no-foo" that does not take "--foo" is perhaps OK so should not
trigger an error.

A ("--no-foo", "--foo") pair is better spelled as ("--foo",
"--no-foo") pair whose default is "--foo", but making it an error is
probably a bit too much.

Compared to that, ("--no-foo", "--no-no-foo") pair feels nonsense.

Having said that, because the existing parse_options_check() is all
about catching the programming mistake (the end user cannot fix an
error from it by tweaking the command line option s/he gives to the
program), I do not think a conditional compilation like you added
mixes well.  Either make the whole thing, not just your new test,
conditional to -DDEVELOPER (which would make it possible for you to
build and ship a binary with broken options[] array to the end-users
that does not die in this function), which is undesirable, or add a
new test that catches a definite error unconditionally.