Jeff King <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 07:27:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > @@ -81,7 +82,7 @@ static struct option builtin_config_options[] = { >> > OPT_GROUP(N_("Other")), >> > OPT_BOOL('z', "null", &end_null, N_("terminate values with NUL byte")), >> > OPT_BOOL(0, "name-only", &omit_values, N_("show variable names only")), >> > - OPT_BOOL(0, "includes", &respect_includes, N_("respect include >> > directives on lookup")), >> > + OPT_BOOL(0, "includes", &respect_includes_opt, N_("respect include >> > directives on lookup")), >> >> It would be more in line with what the log message advertised if you >> did >> >> static struct config_options config_options = { >> -1, /* .respect_includes: unspecified */ >> }; >> >> OPT_BOOL(0, "includes", &config_options.respect_includes, N_("...")), >> >> no? > > I think I like the split between the option-value here and the "final" > value that goes into config_options.respect_includes. Because we > actually munge it later based on the given-config value anyway. > > So I agree this makes the diff larger than it might need to be, but I > think the end result is a bit nicer.
Yeah, I didn't see the end result was a single bit (unsigned :1). This separation is OK.
