Re: [PATCH] pathspec: rename per-item field has_wildcard to use_wildcard

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Apr 8, 2011, 08:29 UTC
Message-ID: <4D9EC75F.1060901@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vr59detcu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 07.04.2011 21:47:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
>> Because I doubt that the major restructuring we discussed earlier won't be
>> ready within the 1.7.6 timeframe,...
> 
> I think people involved in this thread have dealt with my bad writing long
> enough and understood what I meant, but just in case, I meant to say that
> I do not think restructuring would be ready to ship with 1.7.6,
> in other words, s/won't/will/ is needed above.
> 
> Sorry for a noise.

No problem, that was clear from the context. "Doubt" is such a weak form of negation that many people miss that possible double negation. In several languages (or even dialects) a double negation is a strong form of negation.

The time line sounds very sane, and I'm with the parentheses. What I'm wondering about are :foo and :foo:bar (which have no modifiers to parse). I thought you meant to eat the ":" only in the former and not the latter but I guess I was mistaken. Maybe we can make the ":" literal when it can't be parsed, or make it do something (":/" as you suggested), because swallowing it and then doing nothing seems doubly bad.

Michael