On 12/10/2018 14:36, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood <phillip.w...@talktalk.net> writes:
It would be nice if the parsing used starts_with(option_name, user_text)
rather than strcmp() as well. Also I think --color-moved=no is valid as
a synonym of --no-color-moved but --color-moved-ws=no is not supported.
I am not sure about starts_with(). Do you mean we should accept
"--color-mo", as that is a prefix of "--color-moved" that is not
shared with any existing option, until we gain a different option
"--color-more"?
I was thinking of the option arguments rather than the option names
although being able to abbreviate the names in the same way as the
commands that parse_options() would be good too (I seem to remember
someone saying they had some rough patches to use parse_options() for
diff and log in a discussion of adding completion support to
parse_options())
If you mean "--color-moved-ws=no" (or "--no-color-moved-ws") as a
way to countermand an earlier --color-moved-ws=<something> on the
command line, I fully agree that it is a good idea.
Oh I assumed --no-color-moved-ws was allowed but it isn't it. Allowing
--color-moved-ws=no as well would match what is allowed for
--color-moved. I'll try and look at that.
Best Wishes
Phillip
