On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So we can type '@' instead of 'HEAD@', or rather 'HEAD'. So now we can
>> use 'git show @~1', and all that goody goodness.
> I like this. I haven't spent a lot of time on thinking about
> ambiguation. But I think we're safe there. '@' is not overloaded much
> like ':', '^' or '~'.
>> This patch allows 'HEAD@' to be the same as 'HEAD@{0}', and similarly with
>> 'master@'.
> I'm a bit reluctant to this. It looks like incomplete syntax to me as
> '@' has always been followed by '{'. Can we have the lone '@' candy
> but reject master@ and HEAD@? There's no actual gain in writing
> master@ vs master@{0}.

That's what I tried first, but it just didn't feel elegant to have one
check for this case only. foo@ does follow naturally, and it doesn't

>> +'@'::
>> +  '@' alone is a shortcut for 'HEAD'
>> +
> And this does not explain about HEAD@ or master@. But because I prefer
> the candy part only. This documentation part looks good :)

Yeah, there's no point in documenting things that are not useful for
the user. The fact that HEAD@ is translated to HEAD is just an
implementation detail.

Felipe Contreras
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

Reply via email to