From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:33:10 GMT Subject: Re: [BUG?] blame: Odd -L 1,+0 behavior Message-ID: <7vmxtrqcpl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: >> As a side effect of the internal implementation of this logic -L 5,3 >> means the same thing as -L 3,5 but that is not an intended nor >> documented behaviour. > > How should L 5,3 and 3,5 work? Should the former give an error? "-L 3,5" would choose "lines 3,4, and 5" (both ends inclusive). Currently "-L 5,3" does the same thing but as I said, that is not an intended nor documented behaviour, and if you are tackling this area to tighten the parsing and error diagnosis, I think it is reasonable to error it out. >>> Shouldn't this either print nothing, er be an error: >> (multiple) >> >> The parsing code is lax in the sense that rejecting nonsensical input like >> "-L 10,-100" and "-L 2,+0" as an error was not considered a primary goal. >> The only error checking it does is to make sure it does not parse numbers >> that it cannot use (i.e. start from line 30 in a file that does not have >> that many lines). > > Do you want a patch to make it less lax? Be my guest ;-) Thanks.