On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Jeff King wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 07:21:18PM -0400, Aaron M Watson wrote:
> > Allows stashes to be referenced by index only. Instead of referencing
> > "stash@{n}" explicitly, it can simply be referenced as "n".
> This says "what" but not "why". I assume it is "because the former is
> more annoying to type".
> Are there any backwards-compatibility issues you can think of?
> I think that "123456" could be a sha1, but I do not see much point in
> referencing a sha1 as the argument of "stash show". And it looks like
> this code path is called only from is_stash_like(), so presumably the
> same logic would apply to other callers.

Maybe we could make it unambiguous, e.g. by using #<n> instead: #123456
cannot refer to a SHA-1.

But then, '#' are comment-starting in shells, so they would have to by
escaped. Maybe the best option would be to introduce a -n <n> option,
with the shortcut -<n> thanks to e0319ff (parseopt: add


Reply via email to