From: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:25:58 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] config: add '--sources' option to print the source of a config value
Message-ID: <56B87B46.6050304@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160205135855.GA19154@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On 2/5/2016 14:58, Jeff King wrote:

> Yeah, I agree it's unlikely. And the output is already ambiguous, as the
> first field could be a blob (though I guess the caller knows if they
> passed "--blob" or not). If we really wanted an unambiguous output, we
> could have something like "file:...", "blob:...", etc. But that's a bit
> less readable for humans, and I don't think solves any real-world
> problems.
>
> So I think it would be OK to use "<command line>" here, as long as the
> token is documented.

Thinking about it again, I actually do like Peff's prefix solution 
better. It would solve the real-world problem that my proposed "<command 
line>" marker could in fact be a file name.

Regards,
Sebastian