git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH/RFC] blame: accept multiple -L ranges

From
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date
Jul 22, 2013, 08:12 UTC
Message-ID
<CAPig+cTh2t_Rc13U_F-prmm=sjs2OEHX5AX2DbC5DH+Tx_E5jg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<7vli5fv5ud.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 32 quoted lines
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> It would be more general to support "follow the second match to /A/"
>> *independent* of whether the first match is also followed.  I think your
>> proposal only allows the second to be followed if the first is also
>> followed.  Therefore it seems to me that your wish is to add a
>> side-effect to one feature so that you can use it to obtain a simulacrum
>> of a second feature, instead of building the second feature directly.
>>
>> Perhaps allow <start> and <end> to be a sequence of forms like
>>
>> /A//A/,+20
>
> Remember "A" is just a placeholder and in real life it would be more
> than one character.  It is just as annoying as hell you have to type
> it again.
>
> I am not saying that a mode that resets the "start searching from
> here" pointer to the beginning of the file is useless.  For example,
> I would not mind typing a special character, e.g.
>
>     -L <begin1>,<end1> -L !<begin2>,<end2>
>
> that resets the search pointer to the beginning, for a rare case
> where I want the search for <begin2> to restart at the top.
>
> But the thing is, the default matters.  And it is far more common,
> at least to me, when I want to say "from here to there, and then
> from here to there", to expect the second "from here" would be below
> the first one I already specified, while I am looking at the current
> state of a single file from top to bottom and notice two places I am
> interested in.

The proposal currently is only for "-L /RE/,whatever" to behave in a relative fashion, beginning the search at the end of the last range specified via -L (or line 1 if there is no previous -L).

Would it also make sense to support "-L +N,whatever" as relative to the end of the last range specified via -L (or 1 if none).

I ask because the implementation changes needed to also support "-L +N,whatever" appear to be less invasive than those only allowing "-L /RE/,whatever/" to be relative. On the other hand, supporting "-L +N,whatever" requires more documentation. I don't necessarily consider less invasive changes as a good reason to support "-L +N,whatever" but it got me thinking about it.

Previous: Junio C HamanoNext: Thomas Rast
Message 15 of 22 in “blame: accept multiple -L ranges”
  1. blame: accept multiple -L rangesEric Sunshine, Jul 7, 2013
  2. Junio C HamanoJul 7, 2013
  3. Eric SunshineJul 9, 2013
  4. Junio C HamanoJul 9, 2013
  5. Eric SunshineJul 9, 2013
  6. Thomas RastJul 9, 2013
  7. Eric SunshineJul 9, 2013
  8. Junio C HamanoJul 9, 2013
  9. Eric SunshineJul 9, 2013
  10. Thomas RastJul 9, 2013
  11. Jonathan NiederJul 9, 2013
  12. Junio C HamanoJul 9, 2013
  13. Michael HaggertyJul 9, 2013
  14. Junio C HamanoJul 9, 2013
  15. Eric SunshineJul 22, 2013
  16. Thomas RastJul 22, 2013
  17. Junio C HamanoJul 22, 2013
  18. Thomas RastJul 22, 2013
  19. Junio C HamanoJul 22, 2013
  20. Thomas RastJul 10, 2013
  21. Junio C HamanoJul 11, 2013
  22. Junio C HamanoJul 9, 2013

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.