On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> That could be easily fixed by making explicit in the syntax that these >> are not typical refs: i.e. @stage and @work. > > The message I get from that suggestion is that the most sensible approach, > if we are going to add something from this discussion to "git diff", is to > do what you did _not_ quote from my message, which is: > > As to --tree-vs-index counterproposal (was it a counterproposal?), > except for that I think they are too long to type in practice and need > to be shortened to be useful, I do not have a fundamental objection > against it. > > IOW, this is about options, and should not be done as syntax sugar that > does a half-baked job of pretending to be refs. Sorry, I thought your only objection to STAGE and WORKTREE was that they were not clearly differentiated, and my proposal gets rid of that issue. Now I fail to see what's the problem since you didn't explain what's wrong with adding syntactic sugar. If the goal of the change is to make things more user-friendly, then I'd say "git diff HEAD @stage" is better than "git diff --tree-vs-staged HEAD". -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html