Re: Another use of "@"?

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: May 4, 2013, 03:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8DkDes5SdvU7W1kg24w3VBaQz9caZnkyy6iWFiYqw6Saw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8DsrY9ybLoCAo35Puc7oR41Kda9nKjBXL147qN-3xrMRA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Matthieu Moy
> <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>> The A/@ could make sense, but I'm wondering whether we're taking the
>> direction of implementing some kind of Brainfuck dialect in Git revision
>> specifiers. I'm not sure we want to add more special characters here and
>> there with subtly different meanings (@ = HEAD, @{1} = HEAD@{1}, A/@ =
>> A/$(git symbolic-ref --short HEAD)).
>
> Another subtle overloading of @ that might be desirable (althought
> might be achievable another way). "git log -g"  is equal to "git log
> -g HEAD" but there is no easy way (that I know of) to do "git log -g
> $(git symbolic-ref HEAD)". "@" could fill the inconvenient spot here,
> I think. Alias is no good because I won't be able to add extra
> options.

I wouldn't mind typing <ref>@{link} that does "git symbolic-ref <ref>", though. Because ref is optional, "git log -g @{link}" is not bad. "link" is probably not a good name for this. -- Duy