From: Charles Bailey Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 07:44:34 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] cat-file: teach cat-file a '--literally' option Message-ID: <20150420074433.GA30422@hashpling.org> In-Reply-To: > On 20 Apr 2015, at 06:30, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Charles Bailey writes: > >> The option isn't a true opposite of hash-object's --literally because >> that also allows the creation of known types with invalid contents (e.g. >> corrupt trees) whereas cat-file is quite happy to show the _contents_ of >> such corrupt objects even without --literally. > > Not really. If you create an object with corrupt type string (e.g. "BLOB" > instead of "blob"), cat-file would not be happy. Sorry, the emphasis should have been on "complete" of "complete opposite". There are some types of bad objects that can be created only with hash-object --literally (malformed tag or tree), for which cat-file works with fine and there are other types (pun unintended - BLOB, wobble, etc.) for which --literally/--unchecked is required with cat-file. So I meant that cat-file's --literally is only a partial "opposite" or analogue of hash-object's. --allow-invalid-types? --force (in the sense of "suppress some possible errors")? It's not a big thing but I'm aware that if we can find a better name then now would be the best moment. If not, then --literally it is.