Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com> writes:
> From: Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com>
>
> We often accept both a "--key" option and a "--key=<val>" option.
>
> These options currently are parsed using something like:
>
> if (!strcmp(arg, "--key")) {
> /* do something */
> } else if (skip_prefix(arg, "--key=", &arg)) {
> /* do something with arg */
> }
>
> which is a bit cumbersome compared to just:
>
> if (skip_to_optional_val(arg, "--key", &arg)) {
> /* do something with arg */
> }
>
> This also introduces skip_to_optional_val_default() for the few
> cases where something different should be done when the first
> argument is exactly "--key" than when it is exactly "--key=".
>
> In general it is better for UI consistency and simplicity if
> "--key" and "--key=" do the same thing though, so that using
> skip_to_optional_val() should be encouraged compared to
> skip_to_optional_val_default().
>
> Note that these functions can be used to parse any "key=value"
> string where "key" is also considered as valid, not just
> command line options.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chrisc...@tuxfamily.org>
> ---
> git-compat-util.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> strbuf.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>
> After thinking about it a bit more and taking a look at the
> current code, I thought that it was probably best to have
> both skip_to_optional_val() and skip_to_optional_val_default().
I guess we came to the same conclusion independently while our mails
crossed ;-)
> - 2 new functions instead of 1
> - "optional" instead of "opt" in the function names
I thought that the more important part you agreed was s/val/arg/,
though.
I had a few small comments on later steps, but I think these are
moving in the right direction.
Thanks.
