Re: [PATCH v17 05/14] ref-filter: introduce match_atom_name()
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Sep 10, 2015, 17:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqd1xq419b.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAOLa=ZQXP-U+dGYYFcvxVmuG2NOSiHYLHEwm2OtvhGQrBW9hdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
> It is one thing that the user can actually do the check themselves, > but doesn't it make more sense that when we're using colon we expect a > value after it, and something like %(color:) makes no sense when color > specifically needs a value after the colon.
If you imagine the format being built by scripts (we are talking about plumbing feature --format here), I think you will realize that it perfectly makes sense to allow them to say "%(atom:$modifiation)" without having to worry about a special case where $modification happened to end up being empty. So no, I do not agree with your statement at all.