Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > I kind of find it surprising that the one single case I happened to > have noticed is the only one that needed special treatment. Did you > go though all the codepath and made sure that the ones that still > return -1 (not -2 and not -3) to parse_options_step() are all OK (in > other words, I was just lucky) or does this version change only the > "ambiguous" case, simply because that was the only one I noticed in > my review (in other words, this may still not be sufficient)? > > Just double checking. > > The changes to existing tests have become a lot less noisy, compared > to the previous one, which is probably a good thing.
I guess I should stop reading my inbox in reverse order. In your reply to my v3 review you said you studied all the codepaths from parse_short_opt() and parse_long_opt() and addition of -3 was needed only for the "ambiguous" case, so the answer to my question above is "I was just lucky and happened to have hit the only problematic case" ;-) Will revert what is in 'next' and queue this one. Thanks.
