From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:20:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/19] checkout: split part of it to new command switch
Message-ID: <CAPig+cR1bpNE3LUB1jOhDsCJA8FqF9kkTUmSrKFPOW6d6hpBPw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cS4Dmgh+hCMXp8ND5DMy6QFVCJOgvDwpcbwZ0HV4MscpA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:24 AM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:29 AM Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:50 AM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:49 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > +'git switch' [<options>] [--guess] <branch>
> > > > +'git switch' [<options>] --detach [<start_point>>]
> > > > +'git switch' [<options>] [[-c|-C|--orphan] <new_branch>] [<start_point>]
> > >
> > > What does the third form mean when all optional arguments (that is,
> > > _all_ arguments) are omitted?
> >
> > "git switch" is smart (or too dumb to be clever):
> >
> > $ git switch
> > fatal: nothing to do
>
> But does it need to be this way? Does it make a good user-experience?
> I, personally, find it confusing to see that it can accept no
> arguments. An alternative, perhaps more consistent with UX elsewhere:
>
>     $ git switch
>     fatal: missing branch argument
>
> or something.

Let me clarify by saying that I don't understand why the third form is
documented as validly accepting no arguments given that a no-argument
invocation is an error. That is, I would expect the third form of the
synopsis to say:

    'git switch' [<options>] (-c|-C|--orphan) <new_branch> [<start_point>]