On 25/10/16 22:41, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Aaron M Watson <watso...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Aaron M Watson <watso...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Instead of referencing "stash@{n}" explicitly, it can simply be
>> referenced as "n".
>> Most users only reference stashes by their position
>> in the stash stask (what I refer to as the "index").
>
> It is unclear if the first sentence is a statement of the fact, an
> expression of desire, or something else. With the current codebase,
> it cannot simply be referenced as "n", and you either "wish it were
> possible", or "make it possible to do so", or perhaps little bit of
> both.
>
> This is why we tend to use imperative mood to give an order to the
> codebase to "be like so" to make it clear.
>
> Perhaps
>
> Instead of referencing "stash@{n}" explicitly, make it possible to
> simply reference as "n". Most users only reference stashes by their
> position in the stash stask (what I refer to as the "index" here).
s/stask/stack/
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
