indygreg added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4615#71677, @durin42 wrote: > No, actually - I was proposing *removing* `required` entirely, and *only* keying off the existence of a default. What you reduces us to only two valid states: required-with-no-default and not-required-with-default. I think we could make the specification of a default the thing that makes the argument optional. WDYT? As far as the internal code API, I think removing `required` is acceptable. I'll code up a patch to do that. REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4615 To: indygreg, #hg-reviewers Cc: indygreg, durin42, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
