Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] config: add options to list only variable names
- From
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 29, 2015, 11:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAP8UFD2Zhomk+ryRfZFWAVs0yZeXUfpBXTo51Cm=Lj1QbkRbmA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqbnh4h5k4.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de> writes: > >> @@ -16,11 +16,12 @@ SYNOPSIS >> 'git config' [<file-option>] [type] [-z|--null] --get-all name [value_regex] >> 'git config' [<file-option>] [type] [-z|--null] --get-regexp name_regex [value_regex] >> 'git config' [<file-option>] [type] [-z|--null] --get-urlmatch name URL >> +'git config' [<file-option>] [-z|--null] --get-name-regexp name_regex >> ... > > At first I wondered why --get-name-regexp is needed, as (purely from > the syntactic level) it appeared at the first glance the existing > '--get-regexp' without 'value_regex' may be sufficient, until I read > this: > >> +--get-name-regexp:: >> + Like --get-regexp, but shows only matching variable names, not its >> + values. > > which makes it clear why it is needed. The distinction is purely > about the output, i.e. the values are omitted.
If the distinction is purely about the output, then it seems logical to add only an output related option, like the --name-only option I suggested, and not 2 new modes (--get-name-regexp and --list-names).
Doesn't it look like git config already has too many modes?
Show 9 quoted lines
> But then it makes me wonder why --get-name-regexp shouldn't > optionally accept value_regex like --get-regexp does, allowing you > to say "list the variables that match this pattern whose values > match this other pattern". I know it may be a feature that is > unnecessary for your purpose, but from a cursory look of the patch > text, you do not seem to be doing anything different between > get-regexp and get-name-regexp codepaths other than flipping > omit_values bit on, so it could be that the feature is already > supported but forgot to document it, perhaps?
This also suggests that it might be more logical to only add an option called --name-only or --omit-values that would map directly to the omit_values bit in the code.