From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:18:02 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Generalized "string function" syntax Message-ID: <7vd44jx9at.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <4ADCF117.2030905@lsrfire.ath.cx> René Scharfe writes: > Junio C Hamano schrieb: > ... >> I was more worried about painting ourselves now in a corner we cannot get >> out of easily later. Even if my answer to question "what are we going to >> add" may be "nothing I can think of right now", it does not make me happy. > > If wrapping wasn't implemented as a nested function, nesting could still > be introduced independently and used for other things -- once these > other things arrive. True. I do not think we _need_ nested expansion; obviously we have lived without it for a long time. > I'm more in favour of adding ways to customize the shape of the elements > rather than adding string functions. %S(width=76,indent=4) over > %[wrap(76,4)%s%]. Yeah, %X(some modifier) that can apply to any 'X' looks much simpler and easier to look at. The way the code is structured currently it might be more work and risk to break things, though.