Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> 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.
