Re: [PATCH] refspec: make @ a valid refspec

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 24, 2020, 22:45 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqo8jmgyrd.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s0PwJ8qEuCCpavshpm0GqV8p37rF8McR2=gdCk2kj+JiQ@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>> I too find that "@ is a shortcut for HEAD" looks ugly both at the UI
>> level and at the implementation level [*1*], but as long as we have
>> it, it is good to try to be consistent and allow "@" everywhere
>> where one would write "HEAD" in places where it is syntacitically
>> infeasible---at least we would be consistently ugly that way ;-).
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Using "@" is rather "illogical" than "ugly", and at that point it is not so subjective.

@-mark leads a suffix that applies some "magic" to what comes before it (e.g. next@{1}, maint@{2.weeks.ago}, and master@{-1}). Making @ a synonym for HEAD means '@' sometimes means a ref and most of the time means the introducer of magic that applies to a ref.

Worse yet, @{4} does not refer to HEAD@{4} but refers to the 4-th previous commit the current branch pointed at, so a mnemonic for the end user to remember the distinction between the two is that a bare "@" is different from HEAD, which is a total opposite X-<.

This is all water under the bridge, though ;-)

> Given that, your suggested title makes more sense.

Sounds good.