Re: [PATCH] revision: introduce ref@{N..M} syntax.

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Dec 17, 2006, 18:14 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612171009550.3479@woody.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vbqm36mv6.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

>
> This allows you to add between Nth and Mth (inclusive) reflog entries.
> "git show master@{1} master@{2} master@{3}" is equivalent to
> "git show master@{1..3}".

Well, logically, if you do that, then you should also allow

	git log master@{one.week.ago..yesterday}

as a reflog expression.

"Because It Only Makes Sense(tm)".

		Linus

PS. Yeah, I'm only half serious. I like our revision parsing, and the above _would_ actually be consistent with the "master@{1..3}" kind of specification, but at the same time, it's also obviously more complex, and maybe it's not THAT usable.

But I think the "master@{date..date}" syntax would actually fall out automatically if you did the {x..y} parsing at a higher level and didn't