Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Just making sure. HEAD@{$n} and @{$n} for non-negative $n mean
> totally different things. @{0} and HEAD@{0} are almost always the
> same, and @{1} and HEAD@{1} may often happen to be the same, but as
> a blanket statement, I find "Since HEAD is implicit in @{}" very
> misleading.
When will they be different? I'm looking at this from the parser's
point of view: when the part before @{} is missing, we dwim a "HEAD".
> As you and Felipe seem to be aiming for the same "Let's allow users
> to say '@' when they mean HEAD", I'll let you two figure the best
> approach out.
I've solved the problem in the general case of symbolic-refs and made
"@" a special case of that.
> One productive way forward might be to come up with a common test
> script pieces to document what constructs that spell @ in place of
> HEAD should be supported,
It's sufficient to test that symbolic refs work properly. @ is a
trivial implementation of a pseudo symbolic-ref (see [5/5]).
> and much more importantly, what constructs
> that happen to have @ in them should not mistakenly trigger the new
> machinery.
At the parsing level, @ can only ever interfere with @{}; I've added
tests for those.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
