From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:55:45 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add new @ shortcut for HEAD
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1OcDT_V_grAiVHH+G_c-UQg_Jv64Uybr+ZbUF7EQiW_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8D6byr+ozGChScMr3rZ7dNGBbYzT5ROnvnTh4AC0x4dNA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This patch allows 'HEAD@' to be the same as 'HEAD@{0}', and similarly with
>>>> 'master@'.
>>>
>>> I'm a bit reluctant to this. It looks like incomplete syntax to me as
>>> '@' has always been followed by '{'. Can we have the lone '@' candy
>>> but reject master@ and HEAD@? There's no actual gain in writing
>>> master@ vs master@{0}.
>>
>> That's what I tried first, but it just didn't feel elegant to have one
>> check for this case only. foo@ does follow naturally, and it doesn't
>> hurt.
>
> I'd say it's a side effect. This would stop both @{-1}@ and master@.
> Whitespace corruption expected.

Yeah, this is what I did first, but if since there's no relation with
anything else, '@' could be any other character.

-- 
Felipe Contreras