From da841b9f69aa249b02442eb6bffae1b507995eee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Henry Fredrick Schreiner <henry.fredrick.schreiner@cern.ch>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:55:16 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Restore humgry option prioritizing over allow_extras

---
 CHANGELOG.md        |  2 +-
 include/CLI/App.hpp |  8 ++------
 tests/AppTest.cpp   | 10 ++++++----
 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md
index 41b057f8..b0d8a1e6 100644
--- a/CHANGELOG.md
+++ b/CHANGELOG.md
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
 * Failure messages are now customizable, with a shorter default [#52](https://github.com/CLIUtils/CLI11/pull/52)
 * `require_subcommand` now offers a two-argument form and negative values on the one-argument form are more useful [#51](https://github.com/CLIUtils/CLI11/pull/51)
 * Subcommands no longer match after the max required number is obtained [#51](https://github.com/CLIUtils/CLI11/pull/51)
-* Unlimited options no longer prioritize over extras or remaining/unlimited positionals [#51](https://github.com/CLIUtils/CLI11/pull/51)
+* Unlimited options no longer prioritize over remaining/unlimited positionals [#51](https://github.com/CLIUtils/CLI11/pull/51)
 
 ## Version 1.2
 
diff --git a/include/CLI/App.hpp b/include/CLI/App.hpp
index 48ad02da..15b464e9 100644
--- a/include/CLI/App.hpp
+++ b/include/CLI/App.hpp
@@ -1392,9 +1392,7 @@ class App {
             bool already_ate_one = false; // Make sure we always eat one
             while(!args.empty() && _recognize(args.back()) == detail::Classifer::NONE) {
                 if(already_ate_one) {
-                    // If allow extras is true, don't keep eating
-                    if(get_allow_extras())
-                        break;
+                    // We could break here for allow extras, but we don't
 
                     // If any positionals remain, don't keep eating
                     if(_count_remaining_positionals() > 0)
@@ -1471,9 +1469,7 @@ class App {
             bool already_ate_one = false; // Make sure we always eat one
             while(!args.empty() && _recognize(args.back()) == detail::Classifer::NONE) {
                 if(already_ate_one) {
-                    // If allow extras is true, don't keep eating
-                    if(get_allow_extras())
-                        break;
+                    // We could break here for allow extras, but we don't
 
                     // If any positionals remain, don't keep eating
                     if(_count_remaining_positionals() > 0)
diff --git a/tests/AppTest.cpp b/tests/AppTest.cpp
index ba86ca87..e306c7d9 100644
--- a/tests/AppTest.cpp
+++ b/tests/AppTest.cpp
@@ -302,11 +302,12 @@ TEST_F(TApp, RequiredOptsUnlimited) {
     run();
     EXPECT_EQ(strs, std::vector<std::string>({"one", "two"}));
 
+    // It's better to feed a hungry option than to feed allow_extras
     app.reset();
     app.allow_extras();
     run();
-    EXPECT_EQ(strs, std::vector<std::string>({"one"}));
-    EXPECT_EQ(app.remaining(), std::vector<std::string>({"two"}));
+    EXPECT_EQ(strs, std::vector<std::string>({"one", "two"}));
+    EXPECT_EQ(app.remaining(), std::vector<std::string>({}));
 
     app.reset();
     app.allow_extras(false);
@@ -335,11 +336,12 @@ TEST_F(TApp, RequiredOptsUnlimitedShort) {
     run();
     EXPECT_EQ(strs, std::vector<std::string>({"one", "two"}));
 
+    // It's better to feed a hungry option than to feed allow_extras
     app.reset();
     app.allow_extras();
     run();
-    EXPECT_EQ(strs, std::vector<std::string>({"one"}));
-    EXPECT_EQ(app.remaining(), std::vector<std::string>({"two"}));
+    EXPECT_EQ(strs, std::vector<std::string>({"one", "two"}));
+    EXPECT_EQ(app.remaining(), std::vector<std::string>({}));
 
     app.reset();
     app.allow_extras(false);