Default for ListOption

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:

> On 20 April 2010 22:14, Martin von Gagern <Martin.vGagern at gmx.net> wrote:>
> I know that this would introduce a deliberate distinction between not
> > passing "--bar" at all and passing "--bar=-". Do you think this is a
> > good idea? If not, "--bar=-" might imply "use default" as well, and a
> > new "--no-bar" option might provide a way to explicitely request an
> > empty list.
>
> I don't think that's a good idea; for things like aliases or shell
> scripting it seems a bit useful for --bar=- to mean "forget I ever
> mentioned bar".  So --no-bar is perhaps the easiest for users and
> shouldn't break the api.
>
> Some other programs seem to handle this with --bar=none though that's
> a bit ugly with None vs 'none'.
>

I'm confused, both of you seem to me to be saying the same thing about
--bar=- - that it should mean 'not mentioned' or 'default', but you're
saying that you see a difference? Could you expand on it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20100421/188596e7/attachment.htm