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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 20, 2012, 16:47 UTC
Message-ID: <7vy5k4bpzh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1348143976-4506-3-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com>

Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> %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.