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.


Reply via email to