From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:09:21 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] test for '!' handling in rev-parse's named commits Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Will Palmer writes: > What I'm thinking now is that "@^{/foo}" can be thought of as a > potential "shorthand-form" of what could be "@^{/!(m=foo)}", in which > case "@^{/!-foo}" could similarly be thought of as a potential > shorthand-form of what could be "@^{/!(m-foo)}". Ah, our messages crossed, it seems. Yes, I think we are on the same page, and it is sensible to think of "/!-string" as a short-hand for the more complete syntax that uses descriptive word, not mnemonic, e.g. "/!(unmatch=string)", that the old thread envisioned. I think it is OK (and probably preferrable) to start with only "/!-string" without the long-hand, as we do not know how multiple long-hand instructions should interact with each other. Thanks.