Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <> writes:

> %C+ tells the next specifiers that color is preferred. %C- the
> opposite. So far only %H, %h and %d support coloring.
> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <>
> ---
>  Documentation/pretty-formats.txt |  2 ++
>  pretty.c                         | 13 ++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> diff --git a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt 
> b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
> index e3d8a83..6e287d6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
> @@ -142,6 +142,8 @@ The placeholders are:
>  - '%Cblue': switch color to blue
>  - '%Creset': reset color
>  - '%C(...)': color specification, as described in color.branch.* config 
> option
> +- '%C+': enable coloring on the following placeholders if supported
> +- '%C-': disable coloring on the following placeholders

OK, so typically you replace some format placeholder "%?" in your
format string with "%C+%?%C-", because you cannot get away with
replacing it with "%C+%? and other things in the format you do not
know if they support coloring%C-".

If that is the case, does it really make sense to have %C-?

It smells as if it makes more sense to make _all_ %? placeholder
reset the effect of %C+ after they are done (even the ones that they
themselves do not color their own output elements), so that you can
mechanically replace "%?" with "%C+%?".

I dunno.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to