Re: [PATCH 08/16] test-lib functions: add --printf option to test_commit

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Apr 12, 2021, 23:04 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cQSS8yp-K8Z5q9eG1t-7sFAyuPEvFDNvX_JaY07BKcMhQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk0p7b3d5.fsf@gitster.g>

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:27 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> > The name "printf" has such strong association in programmer's minds
> > with "%" and argument consumption that the name of this option alone
> > almost begs people to take advantage of argument interpolation even
> > though it's documented here as not allowing it. Taking into
> > consideration that people often do not read documentation, `--printf`
> > as the name of the option may be an unfortunate one. Perhaps it could
> > be called `--raw` or something less likely to suggest argument
> > interpolation.
>
> The reason we want to use 'printf' instead of 'echo' is because only
> some implementations of 'echo' honors '\t\n\r' etc., and 'echo' by
> others show these literally.  Using printf(1) allows us to write
> these backslashed special characters universally.
>
> So, I find 'raw' equally confusing, if not more.

I don't care for `--raw` either but couldn't think of anything better at the time. But perhaps a name such as `--allow-escapes` would be clearer, or perhaps not. `--c-style-escapes`?

Anyhow, it's pure bikeshedding as I mentioned in my original email, so not a big deal. I brought it up only because the very first thought that popped into my head when reading the commit message saying it was adding `--printf` was "oh, interesting; how do I specify the arguments to interpolate into the `printf` format string?".