Re: [PATCH] built-in "git grep" (git grip).

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: May 2, 2006, 08:44 UTC
Message-ID: <e3764f$ea7$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <44571967.7080807@op5.se>

Andreas Ericsson wrote:

> Jakub Narebski wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

>> Yes, I understand, but I just don't like using 'grip'. And it would be
>> nice to have some convention for further not-ready-yet built-in
>> replacements for script versions of commands, for example adding letter
>> 'b' as 'built-in' at the beginning of command name: 'bgrep', 'bdiff'. Or
>> use postfix 'n' or '-ng' to denote transitionary not-ready-yet new
>> version of command: 'grepn', 'diffn' or 'grep-ng', 'diff-ng'.
>> 
> 
> Forcing the user to remember what's implemented as built-ins is not a
> good idea. It was for that exact reason the "git-<command>-script" were
> all renamed "git-<command>" once upon a time.
> 
> "git grip" work just fine for me, since it's only intended for testing
> and performance improvements so far. I also think it's clearer for
> end-users looking for a grep command if they're not faced with
> fgrep/egrep/ggrep/bgrep alongside plain "grep".

Well, scratch 'bgrep' idea, even if I had no intend for 'bgrep' to be persistent name; it was meant as transitionary name. Well, that doesn't matter much because someone interested in testing new, not-ready-yet versions of commands (I like 'grepn' idea) usually would follow git development, and would know (or not) about new version of 'git grep' being 'git grip' (and not 'git grepn').

What about forcing using external grep, and the fact that grep is linked with libpcre?

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland