Re: [PATCH] scalar: accept -C and -c options before the subcommand

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org,
	"Johannes Schindelin" <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>,
	"Taylor Blau" <me@ttaylorr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scalar: accept -C and -c options before the subcommand
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 14:38:44 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a41a53ac-cdaa-3e84-12de-703efed0ce78@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv8y3wxas.fsf@gitster.g>

On 1/28/2022 1:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> My understanding was that this was ejected so we could find the right time
>> to lib-ify handle_options() (as Taylor suggested), but we didn't want to do
>> that while Scalar was still in a tentative state (in contrib/ with a plan
>> to move it out after more is implemented).
>>
>> The biggest benefits of using handle_options() is for other pre-command
>> options such as --exec-path, which I use on a regular basis when testing
>> new functionality.
>>
>> There are other options in handle_options() that might not be appropriate,
>> or might be incorrect if we just make handle_options() non-static. For
>> example, `scalar --list-cmds=parseopt` wouldn't show the scalar commands
>> and would instead show the git commands.
>>
>> So my feeling is that we should continue to delay this functionality until
>> Scalar is more stable, perhaps even until after it moves out of contrib/.
>> The need to change handle_options() to work with a new top-level command
>> is novel enough to be worth careful scrutiny, but that effort is only
>> valuable if the Git community is more committed to having Scalar in the
>> tree for the long term.
> 
> The usual caveat that little things tend to accumulate and you can
> die from thousands of paper cuts aside, if "run in that directory"
> and "pretend these configuration variables are set" are useful
> enough features to Scalar, I think that the straight-forward option
> parser this patch adds is very much acceptable.
> 
> If we need more options (i.e. when we need to add the third thing),
> that would be the best time to see how handle_options() can be
> restructured to serve the different set of options git and Scaler
> need.
> 
> And this loop, which is too small to be even called "duplicated
> implementation", should suffice in the meantime.

I have come around to this line of thinking. My response to Johannes'
detailed examination of my idea goes into that more deeply.

Thanks,
-Stolee