From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:49:49 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 05/14] ref-filter: introduce match_atom_name()
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZS1iVW+=8=TMnOw9Ao_bg0nnhx-4tpyesHjOiYAsTCD4Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd1xq419b.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It is one thing that the user can actually do the check themselves,
>> but doesn't it make more sense that when we're using colon we expect a
>> value after it, and something like %(color:) makes no sense when color
>> specifically needs a value after the colon.
>
> If you imagine the format being built by scripts (we are talking
> about plumbing feature --format here), I think you will realize that
> it perfectly makes sense to allow them to say "%(atom:$modifiation)"
> without having to worry about a special case where $modification
> happened to end up being empty.  So no, I do not agree with your
> statement at all.

Ah! that makes sense, thanks :)

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak