Re: [PATCH 2/2] pretty: support placeholders %C+ and %C-

> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> %C+ tells the next specifiers that color is preferred. %C- the
>> opposite. So far only %H, %h and %d support coloring.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/pretty-formats.txt |  2 ++
>>  pretty.c                         | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
>> index e3d8a83..6e287d6 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
>> @@ -142,6 +142,8 @@ The placeholders are:
>>  - '%Cblue': switch color to blue
>>  - '%Creset': reset color
>>  - '%C(...)': color specification, as described in color.branch.* config option
>> +- '%C+': enable coloring on the following placeholders if supported
>> +- '%C-': disable coloring on the following placeholders
>
> OK, so typically you replace some format placeholder "%?" in your
> format string with "%C+%?%C-", because you cannot get away with
> replacing it with "%C+%? and other things in the format you do not
> know if they support coloring%C-".
>
> If that is the case, does it really make sense to have %C-?
>
> It smells as if it makes more sense to make _all_ %? placeholder
> reset the effect of %C+ after they are done (even the ones that they
> themselves do not color their own output elements), so that you can
> mechanically replace "%?" with "%C+%?".
>
> I dunno.