On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> hurt.
>>> +'@'::
>>> +  '@' 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.

Exactly. As it's implementation detail, it should not be exposed to
user as "huh?" moments when they type "HEAD@". I'm may be paranoid,
but if some user finds it nice (or just different) to try master@ in
scripts, then we change implementation details and master@ no longer
works, people could be upset. Undefined behavior syntax should be kept
to minimum. And to answer your other mail regarding the harmlessness
of @{-1}@, I'd rather pay some extra code than leave some loose ends
like that.
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