Re: [PATCH 7/9] Warnings win over strictness in AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS.

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 01:38:47PM CET:
> And below is the dif for the sanity check I'd like to squash in.
> 
> OK?

Yep, with nits addressed.

Thanks!
Ralf

> @@ -345,14 +352,25 @@ sub _process_option_list (\%@)
>    return 0;
>  }
>  
> +# Note the sanity checks: these function should be called at most once for
> +# each set of options having the same precedence; otherwise, we couldn't
> +# guarantee that explicitly-specified warning levels take precedence
> +# over strictness-implied ones.

This comment is either superfluous or belongs with _process_option_list.
I'd just omit it: the comment before _process_option_list documents it.
(I'm harping on this so pedantically because you should either have one
proper comment before each function in general; merging the comments for
the three functions involved here and thus having them only before
_process_option_list is OK, but then it should be kept that way; having
half the comments merged and the other half not is a recipe for future
confusion.)

>  sub process_option_list (@)
>  {
> +  prog_error "local options already processed"
> +    if ($_options_processed);

No need for parentheses in trailing if.

>    return _process_option_list (%_options, @_);
> +  $_options_processed = 1;
>  }
>  
>  sub process_global_option_list (@)
>  {
> +  prog_error "global options already processed"
> +    if ($_global_options_processed);

Likewise.

>    return _process_option_list (%_global_options, @_);
> +  $_global_options_processed = 1;
>  }
>  
>  =item C<set_strictness ($name)>