Re: [PATCH] config: add an includeIf.env{Exists,Bool,Is,Match}

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 27, 2021, 16:30 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqo88eq8um.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <YU5KOpGkS5sH4iFJ@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

>> > Should we allow whitespace around key names and values? E.g.:
>> >
>> >   [includeIf "env: FOO: bar"]
>> >
>> > is IMHO more readable (even more so if we had infix operators like
>> > "==").
>> 
>> This asserts what? FOO=" bar"?
>
> Whoops, that should have been "envIs", asserting that $FOO contains
> "bar".

Oh, "can we check with a literal with leading whitespace?" was what my question was about ;-)

Show 7 quoted lines

> As I said, I think it matters more with the infix operators, as:
>
>   [includeIf "env:FOO == bar"]
>
> is more readable than:
>
>   [includeIf "env:FOO==bar"]

Sure, but at that point, we'd probably want some quoting mechanism for the literal to be compared, e.g.

	[includeIf "env:PATH ~= \"(:|^)/usr/bin(:|$)\""]

Show 7 quoted lines

> But I do think:
>
>   [includeIf "envIs:FOO:bar"]
>
> is harder to read than even:
>
>   [includeIf "envIs:FOO: bar"]

Hmph, that's quite subjective, I am afraid. When I see the latter in the configuration file, "do I have to have a single space before 'bar' in the value of $FOO" would be the first question that would come to my mind.

With an understanding that our syntax is so limited that we cannot even write '=' and need to resort to Is: instead, I'd actually find that the former less confusing than the latter.

Thanks.