Re: [PATCHv2 03/10] refs.c: Refactor code for mapping between shorthand names and full refnames
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 13, 2013, 20:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vwqr2liv6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v8v3jqsy7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 22 quoted lines
> Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> writes: > >> Obviously, I named it '%1' since it expands into the _first_ component >> of the (slash-separated) shorthand. > > OK, I can buy something like > > %* > refs/%* > refs/heads/%* > ... > refs/remotes/%*/HEAD > refs/remotes/%1/%2 > refs/peers/%1/heads/%2 > > that is, for a pattern that has %*, we feed the end-user string as a > whole, and for a pattern that has %1 thru %N, we find an appropriate > way to chop the end-user string into N pieces (e.g. nick/name would > be split into %1 = nick, %2 = name, while foo/bar/baz might have two > possibilities, <%1, %2> = <foo, bar/baz> or <foo/bar, baz>). The > earlier ones on the above list can even be written with their %* > substituted with %1 if we go that route.
Just to make sure.
Please do not let "two possibilities" stop you. As I said in the nearby thread, I do not necessarily insist that we must try all N possibilities. "We find an appropriate way" could be just "we always chop at the first slash, and %1 is what comes before it, %2 is what comes after it".
That will close the possibility for us to use %1 thru %N (N is limited to 2), but it still is "We have %1 and we have %2, both fall into the same 'path components, numbered from left to right' category", and justifies the use of %1 ("one", not "el").
So still no objection to %1 from me.
Show 6 quoted lines
> And that makes perfect sense, and is exactly the kind of "you plan > to have %2 and %3 that falls into the same category as %1" I was > asking you about in the message. > > So, no more objection to %1 from me, if that is the direction you > are taking us.