Re: Clarify the meaning of "character" in the documentation
- From
- Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
- Date
- Mar 5, 2024, 17:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1a4a04fd6b99e1de1696563cecbe14d1@manjaro.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqmsrc4osm.fsf@gitster.g>
On 2024-03-05 17:38, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 38 quoted lines
> Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org> writes: >> On 2024-03-05 16:32, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@khaugsbakk.name> writes: >>>> I think this is more about `git config --add` not doing any >>>> validation. It just sets things. You can do `git config --add >>>> core.commentChar 'ffd'` and get the same effect. >>> As you said, we should document core.commentChar as limited to an >>> ASCII character, at least as a short term solution. >>> I personally do not see a reason, however, why we need to be limited >>> to a single byte, though. If a patch cleanly implements to allow us >>> to use any one-or-more-byte sequence as core.commentChar, I do not >>> offhand see a good reason to reject it---it would be fully backward >>> compatible and allows you to use a UTF-8 charcter outside ASCII, as >>> well as "//" and the like. >> >> May I ask why would we want the comment character to possibly be >> a multibyte character? I mean, I support localization, to make it all >> easier for the users who opt not to use English, but wouldn't allowing >> multibyte characters for the comment character simply be a bit >> unneeded? >> >> Maybe I'm missing something? > > That's not a question for me ;-). > > It is not my personal itch, so I haven't done anything to make the > commentChar take more than one byte. But if it is somebody else's > itch, I do not see a reason why we should forbid them from > scratching. If the setting seeps through across repository > boundaries, that may create a compatibility issue and that by itself > might be such a reason. If it greatly makes the code more complex, > that may be another reason you can use to argue against adding such > a "feature". If it makes the semantics of what "a comment string" > is and how they are added and stripped at various stages of > processing commit log messages fuzzy and harder to document and > understand, that might be another reason. I however do not think > any of these to be true. Maybe I am overly optimistic. I haven't > looked deeply into the code around commentChar for quite some time.
Yes, there are quite a few possible obstacles. As I replied to Kristoffer a bit earlier, I see this more as a programming exercise. Of course, unless someone really needs it as a new feature, in which case they will probably need to overcome all those obstacles. :)