From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 17:20:46 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 22/36] doc txt & -h consistency: make "rerere" consistent
Message-ID: <xmqqilkyqj9t.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <221004.86fsg4t3x2.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

>> Not really.  A <pathspec> is a set of <pathspec element>s, so
>> writing "<pathspec-element>..." and "<pathspec>" are equivalent.
>
> So, "yes"? I.e. leaving aside "pathspec" or "pathspec-element"
> "<pathspecs>" is redundant to "<pathspecs>..." in this intpreretation?

If you leave it aside, then the answer becomes meaningless, no?

> But for any given "<x>" the "<x>" is not the same as "<x>..."?

Correct.  "<collection-of-xs>" is equivalent to "[<x>...]", but
"<x>" is not equivalent to "[<x>...]" (with or without [] around the
latter).

> But that's really not what we mean most of the time, we *don't* want
> that "..." on the argument to "--opt", because it only takes one
> argument.

Yes.  So an option that takes a single pathspec element should say
as such, I would think.

But I thought that I have already said we should shrink the scope of
this series, concentrating on making -h output and doc match, while
adjusting the body text in the doc to match the phrasing used in the
SYNOPSIS updated to match -h output, so this whole thing is outside
the scope of this topic, I would say.

Thanks.