Re: [RFC] The design of new pathspec features

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2013, 05:05 UTC
Message-ID: <7vpq0otw7y.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130129043517.GA2878@duynguyen-vnpc.dek-tpc.internal>

Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Pathspec mnemonic
> =================
>
> Are :(literal) and :(glob) used often enough to deserve a short
> mnemonic (like :/ is equivalent to :(top))? Which symbols should be
> used?

I do not think we should discuss this before letting people gain experience with various forms of magic; otherwise we would at best end up with a concensus guess among uninformed.

Show 7 quoted lines

> New way to specify long pathspec magic
> ======================================
>
> While testing the pathspec magic code, I grow tired of quoting :(glob)
> every time because '(' is the start of a new shell. Which is one of
> the reasons I introduce --[no]glob-pathspecs. Still I'd like a way to
> specify long pathspec magic without quoting.

Is this a real issue, though? Often interesting pathspecs do have shell globs in them and we have to quote them anyway.

> How about making ":q/xxx/" an equivalence of ":(xxx)"?

A moderately strong no from here.