On Tue, 05 Jun 2012, Peter Wang <noval...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:48:48 +0100, Mark Walters <markwalters1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> +static notmuch_bool_t
>> +_process_int_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *arg_desc, char next, const char
>> *arg_str) {
>> +
>> + char *endptr;
>> + if (next == 0 || arg_str[0] == 0) {
>> + fprintf (stderr, "Option \"%s\" needs an integer argument.\n",
>> arg_desc->name);
>> + return FALSE;
>> + }
>> +
>> + *((int *)arg_desc->output_var) = strtol (arg_str, &endptr, 10);
>> + if (*endptr == 0)
>> + return TRUE;
>
> It's usually clearer to write '\0' for the null character.
Yes I agree: fixed. I also changed the other instances.
>> @@ -99,20 +133,13 @@ parse_option (const char *arg,
>> char next = arg[strlen (try->name)];
>> const char *value= arg+strlen(try->name)+1;
>>
>> - char *endptr;
>> -
>> - /* Everything but boolean arguments (switches) needs a
>> - * delimiter, and a non-zero length value. Boolean
>> - * arguments may take an optional =true or =false value.
>> - */
>> - if (next != '=' && next != ':' && next != 0) return FALSE;
>> - if (next == 0) {
>> - if (try->opt_type != NOTMUCH_OPT_BOOLEAN &&
>> - try->opt_type != NOTMUCH_OPT_KEYWORD)
>> - return FALSE;
>> - } else {
>> - if (value[0] == 0) return FALSE;
>> - }
>> + /* If this is not the end of the argument (i.e. the next
>> + * character is not a space or a delimiter) we stop
>> + * parsing for this option but allow the parsing to
>> + * continue to for other options. This should allow
>> + * options to be initial segments of other options. */
>
> It took me a little while to figure out what the last sentence was
> about. Perhaps:
>
> If we have not reached the end of the argument (i.e. the next
> character is not a space or delimiter) then the argument could
> still match a longer option name later in the option table.
This is much clearer, thanks!
> (otherwise, "continue to for other")
>
>> + if (next != '=' && next != ':' && next != 0)
>> + goto DONE_THIS_OPTION;
>
> The `goto' could be expressed as a `continue' in a `for' loop, AFAICS.
This is also much nicer. Updated patch follows
Thanks for the review!
Best wishes
Mark
_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
