From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:20:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add new @ shortcut for HEAD
Message-ID: <CAMP44s28aQ7aDCBk=TwPJsb4xoyQMfx85DhaNB4P+XzbgctoPw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0=GbhALxX0G-ka5oAbixoJv4uKPHAx5LPezgTyGxW_3MQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> If you accept only "@" but not "master@", that behaviour needs a
>> wrong world model to understand and justify (one of which is "@ is a
>> synonym for HEAD").  If your rule is "In $anything@{$n}, you can
>> drop {$n} when $n==0", then HEAD@{0} becomes HEAD@ and master@{0}
>> becomes master@, and @{0} becomes @ naturally.
>
> Besides, you're going in the wrong direction this time.  You are
> trying to fit an explanation to something that is useless.  How is
> master@ useful?

It's not. The same way master^0^0~4 is not useful, yet it's works;
it's a logical result from the syntax.

-- 
Felipe Contreras