On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
> I'd say it's a side effect. This would stop both @{-1}@ and master@.
> Whitespace corruption expected.

Yeah, this is what I did first, but if since there's no relation with
anything else, '@' could be any other character.

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