"Sittampalam, Ganesh" <ganesh.sittampa...@credit-suisse.com> writes: >> Florent had a more general mechanism, but one which sounds harder to >> implement. What do you think, Florent? From a UI Skeptic point of >> view, should we, just implement pull --bundle for expediency now, and >> worry about the 'in' matcher later? > > IMO from a UI skeptic point of view, we should favour the more general > idea (i.e. Florent's) over the more specific one. > > The only reservation I have there is that a matcher that involves > looking at remote stuff is a bit weird.
I agree that matchers are more general and probably the right thing to do. Nevertheless, I am a bit sceptical about the current implementation and also the user interface. Basically, everything-matcher besides -p needs to be wrapped with --match and somewhat disturbing quotes. I think the UI is the main reason why I keep avoiding heavier matcher use, even though they are very useful in theory. I might have mentioned this somewhere, but just adding the option to say -m author=mornfall instead of --match "author mornfall" would make me happier. I know that -m is currently taken by --name. The fact that there's no short for --match is nevertheless fairly annoying. Also, I would probably expect mentioning -m multiple times to get you an intersection of the matchers, so I can get further without quoting. There's of course an option of using : instead of = (that's what notmuch(1) does: notmuch search from:kowey) which may be nicer. At that point, we could also add aliases for various -m foo:bar options, which would be especially useful with the "in" matcher, since neither of --match "in ../bun<TAB>" nor -m in:../bun<TAB> actually works, which is another UI bother (same for the touch matcher). I know it looks minor, but it can have a major experience impact, IMHO. Yours, Petr. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
