Re: [PATCH v2] pretty: add %(decorate[:<options>]) format

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 11, 2023, 20:38 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqv8dlqpq7.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CAHWeT-Zo3nTTGBfJPwNhg50KfLn-GAdpU8WZ96d7fT9_axAQXg@mail.gmail.com>

Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@gmail.com> writes:

> There are a number of uses of designated initializers already, so
> hopefully compound literals aren't too much of an extra challenge.

I do not see how one leads to the other here. I'd prefer not to see use of a new construct we do not currently use mixed in a new code, even if it is mentioned in the proposed log message.

If we want to use compound literals in our codebase in the longer term, we should first add a weatherballoon use to a very stable part of the codebase that rarely changes, in a single patch that is trivial to revert when a platform that matters is found to have problem with the language construct, just like what we did when we adopted the use of designated initializers.

Thanks.