Re: [PATCH v7 13/17] ref-filter: add `:dir` and `:base` options for ref printing atoms

> Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> dirname makes sense. What about implementing a reverse variant of
>> strip, which you could perform stripping of right-most components and
>> instead of stripping by a number, strip "to" a number, ie: keep the
>> left N most components, and then you could use something like
>> ...
>> I think that would be more general purpose than basename, and less confusing?
> 
> I think you are going in the right direction.  I had a similar
> thought but built around a different axis.  I.e. if strip=1 strips
> one from the left, perhaps we want to have rstrip=1 that strips one
> from the right, and also strip=-1 to mean strip everything except
> one from the left and so on?.  I think this and your keep (and
> perhaps you'll have rkeep for completeness) have the same expressive
> power.  I do not offhand have a preference one over the other.
> 
> Somehow it sounds a bit strange to me to treat 'remotes' as the same
> class of token as 'heads' and 'tags' (I'd expect 'heads' and
> 'remotes/origin' would be at the same level in end-user's mind), but
> that is probably an unrelated tangent.  The reason this series wants
> to introduce :base must be to emulate an existing feature, so that
> existing feature is a concrete counter-example that argues against
> my "it sounds a bit strange" reaction.