Re: [PATCH 1/3] cli: add support for --no- prefixed boolean and keyword flag arguments

2017-10-14 Thread William Casarin

Tested ACK 1-3 + id:20171014201836.4486-1-j...@nikula.org
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: [PATCH 1/3] cli: add support for --no- prefixed boolean and keyword flag arguments

2017-10-14 Thread William Casarin
Jani Nikula  writes:

> *blush* I screwed those enums up. Here's a patch that takes care of both
> issues id:20171014201836.4486-1-j...@nikula.org. It's independent of
> this series.

Works, thanks.

-- 
https://jb55.com
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: [PATCH 1/3] cli: add support for --no- prefixed boolean and keyword flag arguments

2017-10-14 Thread Jani Nikula
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, William Casarin  wrote:
> Hey Jani,
>
> Patches look good so far, concept ack for sure.
>
>
> Jani Nikula  writes:
>
>> For example, you can use --no-exclude instead of --exclude=false in
>> notmuch show. If we had keyword flag arguments with some flags
>> defaulting to on, say --include=tags in notmuch dump/restore, this
>> would allow --no-include=tags to switch that off while not affecting
>> other flags.
>
> I've been testing it a bit, I can't seem to make this work in this example:
>
> ./notmuch count --no-exclude
>
> After some brief investigation it might be because count is using
> EXCLUDE_true(1) and EXCLUDE_false(0) which are not equal to
> NOTMUCH_EXCLUDE_TRUE(1) and NOTMUCH_EXCLUDE_FALSE(2), but I'm not sure.

*blush* I screwed those enums up. Here's a patch that takes care of both
issues id:20171014201836.4486-1-j...@nikula.org. It's independent of
this series.

BR,
Jani.


___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


Re: [PATCH 1/3] cli: add support for --no- prefixed boolean and keyword flag arguments

2017-10-14 Thread William Casarin

Hey Jani,

Patches look good so far, concept ack for sure.


Jani Nikula  writes:

> For example, you can use --no-exclude instead of --exclude=false in
> notmuch show. If we had keyword flag arguments with some flags
> defaulting to on, say --include=tags in notmuch dump/restore, this
> would allow --no-include=tags to switch that off while not affecting
> other flags.

I've been testing it a bit, I can't seem to make this work in this example:

./notmuch count --no-exclude

After some brief investigation it might be because count is using
EXCLUDE_true(1) and EXCLUDE_false(0) which are not equal to
NOTMUCH_EXCLUDE_TRUE(1) and NOTMUCH_EXCLUDE_FALSE(2), but I'm not sure.

Cheers,
William

-- 
https://jb55.com
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch


[PATCH 1/3] cli: add support for --no- prefixed boolean and keyword flag arguments

2017-10-14 Thread Jani Nikula
Add transparent support for negating boolean and keyword flag
arguments using --no-argument style on the command line. That is, if
the option description contains a boolean or a keyword flag argument
named "argument", --no-argument will match and negate it.

For boolean arguments this obviously means the logical NOT. For
keyword flag arguments this means bitwise AND of the bitwise NOT,
i.e. masking out the specified bits instead of OR'ing them in.

For example, you can use --no-exclude instead of --exclude=false in
notmuch show. If we had keyword flag arguments with some flags
defaulting to on, say --include=tags in notmuch dump/restore, this
would allow --no-include=tags to switch that off while not affecting
other flags.

As a curiosity, you should be able to warp your brain using
--no-exclude=true meaning false and --no-exclude=false meaning true if
you wish.

Specifying both "argument" and "no-argument" style arguments in the
same option description should be avoided. In this case, --no-argument
would match whichever is specified first, and --argument would only
match "argument".
---
 command-line-arguments.c | 48 +---
 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/command-line-arguments.c b/command-line-arguments.c
index 1ff5aae578c6..69ee1cb07f47 100644
--- a/command-line-arguments.c
+++ b/command-line-arguments.c
@@ -11,8 +11,9 @@
 */
 
 static bool
-_process_keyword_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *arg_desc, char next, const 
char *arg_str) {
-
+_process_keyword_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *arg_desc, char next,
+ const char *arg_str, bool negate)
+{
 const notmuch_keyword_t *keywords;
 
 if (next == '\0') {
@@ -24,7 +25,9 @@ _process_keyword_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *arg_desc, 
char next, const char
if (strcmp (arg_str, keywords->name) != 0)
continue;
 
-   if (arg_desc->opt_flags)
+   if (arg_desc->opt_flags && negate)
+   *arg_desc->opt_flags &= ~keywords->value;
+   else if (arg_desc->opt_flags)
*arg_desc->opt_flags |= keywords->value;
else
*arg_desc->opt_keyword = keywords->value;
@@ -39,7 +42,9 @@ _process_keyword_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *arg_desc, 
char next, const char
 }
 
 static bool
-_process_boolean_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *arg_desc, char next, const 
char *arg_str) {
+_process_boolean_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *arg_desc, char next,
+ const char *arg_str, bool negate)
+{
 bool value;
 
 if (next == '\0' || strcmp (arg_str, "true") == 0) {
@@ -51,7 +56,7 @@ _process_boolean_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *arg_desc, 
char next, const char
return false;
 }
 
-*arg_desc->opt_bool = value;
+*arg_desc->opt_bool = negate ? !value : value;
 
 return true;
 }
@@ -139,6 +144,8 @@ parse_position_arg (const char *arg_str, int pos_arg_index,
 return false;
 }
 
+#define NEGATIVE_PREFIX "no-"
+
 /*
  * Search for a non-positional (i.e. starting with --) argument matching arg,
  * parse a possible value, and assign to *output_var
@@ -155,6 +162,14 @@ parse_option (int argc, char **argv, const 
notmuch_opt_desc_t *options, int opt_
 assert(options);
 
 const char *arg = _arg + 2; /* _arg starts with -- */
+const char *negative_arg = NULL;
+
+/* See if this is a --no-argument */
+if (strlen (arg) > strlen (NEGATIVE_PREFIX) &&
+   strncmp (arg, NEGATIVE_PREFIX, strlen (NEGATIVE_PREFIX)) == 0) {
+   negative_arg = arg + strlen (NEGATIVE_PREFIX);
+}
+
 const notmuch_opt_desc_t *try;
 
 const char *next_arg = NULL;
@@ -171,11 +186,22 @@ parse_option (int argc, char **argv, const 
notmuch_opt_desc_t *options, int opt_
if (! try->name)
continue;
 
-   if (strncmp (arg, try->name, strlen (try->name)) != 0)
+   char next;
+   const char *value;
+   bool negate = false;
+
+   if (strncmp (arg, try->name, strlen (try->name)) == 0) {
+   next = arg[strlen (try->name)];
+   value = arg + strlen (try->name) + 1;
+   } else if (negative_arg && (try->opt_bool || try->opt_flags) &&
+  strncmp (negative_arg, try->name, strlen (try->name)) == 0) {
+   next = negative_arg[strlen (try->name)];
+   value = negative_arg + strlen (try->name) + 1;
+   /* The argument part of --no-argument matches, negate the result. */
+   negate = true;
+   } else {
continue;
-
-   char next = arg[strlen (try->name)];
-   const char *value = arg + strlen(try->name) + 1;
+   }
 
/*
 * If we have not reached the end of the argument (i.e. the
@@ -194,9 +220,9 @@ parse_option (int argc, char **argv, const 
notmuch_opt_desc_t *options, int opt_
 
bool opt_status = false;
if (try->opt_keyword || try->opt_flags)
-   opt_status = _process_keyword_arg (try, next, value);
+   opt_status = _process_k