Re: [PATCH] Add the diff option --no-defaults

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 09:52:50AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Right now, I think we are safe. A few options like "--default" do take a
> > separated string argument, but saying "--default --no-defaults" seems a
> > little crazy to me (besides being confusing because they are talking
> > about two totally unrelated defaults).
> 
> Maybe you guys have already considered and discarded this as too hacky,
> but isn't it the easiest to explain and code to declare --no-defaults is
> acceptable only at the beginning?

I discarded that as "too hacky". If I had to choose my poison between
"insane string options don't work" and "option must inexplicably be at
the front", I think I take the former. It is perhaps a more difficult
rule to realize you are triggering, but it is much less likely to come
up in practice.

But I think all of this is just ending up in the same place that Keith
and I arrived at much earlier in the thread: you _are_ choosing a
poison, and his patch was meant to avoid that. The question is whether
the added code complexity is worth it.

-Peff