On 09/16/2016 04:33 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Pierre-Yves David
<pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org>>

            On 09/14/2016 05:11 AM, Augie Fackler wrote:

                # HG changeset patch
                # User Augie Fackler <au...@google.com
                # Date 1472584421 14400
                #      Tue Aug 30 15:13:41 2016 -0400
                # Node ID 828f260114a3a55e246cb5de434e75bdc782e4ad
                # Parent  600be3c9acee0ec14bd19c032cc0480e4501fe8c
                fancyopts: disallow true as a boolean flag default (API)

                This was nonsense, as there's not been a way for the user to
                un-specify the flag. Restricting this behavior will open
                the door to
                some nice fit-and-finish functionality in a later patch,
                and shouldn't
                break any third party extensions. This is marked as
                (API) since it
                might break a third party extension, but given the fact
                that it was
                silly before that's mostly a formality.

            I really wish we had details on this as requested in the
            review of the previous version. Especially because I
            remember that forbidding 'True' as default was making other
            improvement hard so I'm not sure why we have to do this.

        Err? I'm not sure what you're asking for now, and I definitely
        didn't understand it on the last go round.

    Okay, let me clarified, My question here is:

    Why is this problematic to have default to 'True Value'

    You refered this as """These cases are a bit problematic, because we
    don't really have a way to specify default-true flags""" in

    I'm seeing another avatar of this question when you says
    "Restricting this behavior will open the door to some nice
    fit-and-finish functionality in a later patch" in the current
    thread. I would like details on this "nice fit-and-finish" features.

    Does this clarify my question ?

Sure. The answer (which I can fold into the log message if you think
it's important) is that because of how opts make it into diffopts, we
can't rely on opts to not be filled in for a value that was unspecified
on the command line. Because of that, we need to find a backwards
compatible way to thread defaults through such that they can be
identified as defaults. The easy way out is to use None for default and
False for explicitly-false.

Yes please, fold it into the commit message. This this have been confusing me for the last versions this will probably be useful to other.

I'm open to other solutions on the tri-state, but it's a significant
piece of work that I don't really want to take on.

Getting the handle of tri-state right in a way to do not install a future complex rework for the 'default' to True case seems important to me. The amount of work involved does not appear too daunting to me.


Pierre-Yves David
Mercurial-devel mailing list

Reply via email to