Re: [PATCH] sha1_name: reorganize get_sha1_basic()

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 2, 2013, 17:52 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2HPRpbot2YhTmRNRmGj_1-+BdnjW9kTVXwq3Ni0YiObA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8CWGJZByedxhzuU8OkPPBc0XmfZqE_e_ehmt55t-tHmsQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Through the years the functionality to handle @{-N} and @{u} has moved
>> around the code, and as a result, code that once made sense, doesn't any
>> more.
>>
>> There is no need to call this function recursively with the branch of
>> @{-N} substituted because dwim_{ref,log} already replaces it.
>>
>> However, there's one corner-case where @{-N} resolves to a detached
>> HEAD, in which case we wouldn't get any ref back.
>>
>> So we parse the nth-prior manually, and deal with it depending on
>> weather it's a SHA-1, or a ref.
>
> If you are brave, reorganize the whole extended sha-1 parsing code. I
> think the right-to-left parsing is confusing, not to mention it has to
> treat ":path" differently. But may be that's too big work for little
> gain.

Yeah, it took me a while to figure it was the other way around to what I thought was natural. Maybe after the dust with '@' is settled.

FTR. This doesn't work @{u}@{u}.

-- 
Felipe Contreras