Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> 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 <pclo...@gmail.com>
>> Documentation/pretty-formats.txt | 2 ++
>> pretty.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/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
>> +- '%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.
Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps we would want a generic
mechanism to give parameters to various %? placeholders. This is not
limited to "I can do color but there is no mechanism for the user to
tell me that I should do color" %H, %h and %d may want to say. An
obvious and immediate example is that %h might want to be told how
many hexdigits it should use.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html