Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-09-29 Thread Yuya Nishihara 
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:24:59 -0500, Kevin Bullock wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 2016, at 12:07, Augie Fackler  wrote:
> > Should I mail a v6? How do people feel about this particular patch, commit 
> > message aside?
> 
> I'd say it's the cleanest of the options presented thus far. I'm in favor.

I like this, too.

> +else:
> +if ('no-' + longopt) not in alllong:
> +lo = '--[no-]' + lo[2:]
> +multioccur = True

'multioccur = True' looks like a remainder from the previous round.
___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-09-28 Thread Kevin Bullock 
> On Sep 28, 2016, at 12:07, Augie Fackler  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 10:36, Kevin Bullock  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:32, Augie Fackler  wrote:
>>> 
 On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:25, Pierre-Yves David 
  wrote:
 
> which avoid the visual noise of the current approach in this change is
> unfortunate, it matches the format I'm used to seeing in man pages and
> similar documentation venues.
 
 I'm confused about this sentence. It seems like some part is missing. What 
 is unfortunate? What version is matching the format we are use to seeing 
 in man pages?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The current version -> the version in v5
>>> 
>>> has unfortunate visual clutter, but also matches what I'm used to seeing in 
>>> man pages.
>>> 
>>> I'll grant you it's an unusual construction though. Perhaps
>>> 
>>> 
 which avoid the unfortunate visual noise in this patch. In this version's 
 favor, it's consistent with what I'm used to seeing in man pages and 
 similar documentation venues.
>>> 
>>> is clearer?
>> 
>> Thank you, yes, this is clear now. I also had trouble parsing the original.
> 
> Should I mail a v6? How do people feel about this particular patch, commit 
> message aside?

I'd say it's the cleanest of the options presented thus far. I'm in favor.

pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
Kevin R. Bullock

___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-09-28 Thread Augie Fackler 

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 10:36, Kevin Bullock  
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:32, Augie Fackler  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:25, Pierre-Yves David 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 which avoid the visual noise of the current approach in this change is
 unfortunate, it matches the format I'm used to seeing in man pages and
 similar documentation venues.
>>> 
>>> I'm confused about this sentence. It seems like some part is missing. What 
>>> is unfortunate? What version is matching the format we are use to seeing in 
>>> man pages?
>> 
>> 
>> The current version -> the version in v5
>> 
>> has unfortunate visual clutter, but also matches what I'm used to seeing in 
>> man pages.
>> 
>> I'll grant you it's an unusual construction though. Perhaps
>> 
>> 
>>> which avoid the unfortunate visual noise in this patch. In this version's 
>>> favor, it's consistent with what I'm used to seeing in man pages and 
>>> similar documentation venues.
>> 
>> is clearer?
> 
> Thank you, yes, this is clear now. I also had trouble parsing the original.

Should I mail a v6? How do people feel about this particular patch, commit 
message aside?

> 
> pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
> Kevin R. Bullock
___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-09-28 Thread Kevin Bullock 
> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:32, Augie Fackler  wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:25, Pierre-Yves David 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> which avoid the visual noise of the current approach in this change is
>>> unfortunate, it matches the format I'm used to seeing in man pages and
>>> similar documentation venues.
>> 
>> I'm confused about this sentence. It seems like some part is missing. What 
>> is unfortunate? What version is matching the format we are use to seeing in 
>> man pages?
> 
> 
> The current version -> the version in v5
> 
> has unfortunate visual clutter, but also matches what I'm used to seeing in 
> man pages.
> 
> I'll grant you it's an unusual construction though. Perhaps
> 
> 
>> which avoid the unfortunate visual noise in this patch. In this version's 
>> favor, it's consistent with what I'm used to seeing in man pages and similar 
>> documentation venues.
> 
> is clearer?

Thank you, yes, this is clear now. I also had trouble parsing the original.

pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
Kevin R. Bullock

___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-09-28 Thread Pierre-Yves David 



On 09/28/2016 03:32 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:



On Sep 28, 2016, at 08:25, Pierre-Yves David
> wrote:


which avoid the visual noise of the current approach in this change is
unfortunate, it matches the format I'm used to seeing in man pages and
similar documentation venues.


I'm confused about this sentence. It seems like some part is missing.
What is unfortunate? What version is matching the format we are use to
seeing in man pages?


The current version -> the version in v5

has unfortunate visual clutter, but also matches what I'm used to seeing
in man pages.

I'll grant you it's an unusual construction though. Perhaps


which avoid the unfortunate visual noise in this patch. In this
version's favor, it's consistent with what I'm used to seeing in man
pages and similar documentation venues.


is clearer?


Yep. thank you very much

--
Pierre-Yves David
___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Re: [PATCH v5] help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

2016-09-28 Thread Pierre-Yves David 



On 09/27/2016 11:55 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:

# HG changeset patch
# User Augie Fackler 
# Date 1473821892 14400
#  Tue Sep 13 22:58:12 2016 -0400
# Node ID 7f6af551cbc5394441f62383e5ced5084f59bff5
# Parent  e83f89d3b1f733d0ee5f23f6a2293279a17fbbfb
help: mark boolean flags with [no-] to explain that they can be negated (RFC)

That is, help gets tweaked thus:

  global options ([+] can be repeated):
   -v --[no-]verbose  enable additional output


Still an RFC because it's still unclear what we should do. Other
proposals have included:

  global options ([+] can be repeated, options marked [?] are boolean flags):
   -v --verbose[?]enable additional output

and

  global options ([+] can be repeated, options marked [^] are boolean flags):
   -v --verbose[^]enable additional output

which avoid the visual noise of the current approach in this change is
unfortunate, it matches the format I'm used to seeing in man pages and
similar documentation venues.


I'm confused about this sentence. It seems like some part is missing. 
What is unfortunate? What version is matching the format we are use to 
seeing in man pages?


Cheers,

--
Pierre-Yves David
___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel