From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:37:10 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] add '%d' pretty format specifier to show decoration
Message-ID: <20080905003710.GA17731@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7v7i9r1lnm.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 05:28:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > The whole series looks good to me, and I am happy if it is applied
> > as-is. The only question I might raise is whether we want to use "%d"
> > for this, or use something longer to anticipate a collision with other
> > "d" words (I think you mentioned "describe" at one point).
> 
> How about using "%d()" for this one, so that later enhancements can
> specify their features inside parentheses?

I am slightly opposed to that, just because it then is very inconsistent
with the other formatting specifiers. I think it is worth introducing a
new, consistent syntax, providing that syntax for all specifiers (e.g.,
%(body), %(decorate)), and then saying "the existing %b, %d, et al are
still available and will be available forever. BUT they will never grow
the more interesting features like %(body:wrap=80) or
%(decorate:delim=, ).

-Peff