On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 17:28 +0000, Will Palmer wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 11:17 -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:54:01PM +0000, Will Palmer wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > You can now do "%ad(short)" or similar (using any format > > > > that works for --date). This makes some formats like %aD > > > > redundant (since you can do "%ad(rfc)"), but of course we > > > > keep them for compatibility. > > > > > > > > > > The more I see long formats like this, the more I think it would make > > > sense to make formats %(likeThis), the way for-each-ref does. > > > Ideally, these formats could even be unified, at some point. > > > > Yeah, I totally agree. One problem is that everytime an extended format > > comes up it gets bikeshedded to death as everybody mentions their > > favorite format and/or feature, and then nobody codes it. > > > > > I tried this a long while ago, as part of my attempt to make all > > > pre-defined formats work in terms of format strings, but that turned > > > into too much of a bloated mess to bother submitting. I don't know > > > if there's enough interest in such a thing to justify trying again (or to > > > justify rebasing the bloated version, cleaning it up and submitting it > > > as-is, for that matter) > > > > I think there is interest. I'd be curious to see what you have. A few > > days ago, when working on this series, I tried to make a > > minimally-invasive change to allow "%(ad)" to work alongside "%ad", with > > a generic arguments format like %(ad:flag:key=value). Which would allow > > existing shorthand, for-each-ref-style %(refname:short), and leave room > > for arbitrary extension of each placeholder (alongside more > > human-readable placeholder names). > > > > The problem I ran into was the internal code interface. We parse the > > format string each time we expand it. This works OK for simple > > printf-like stuff. But ideally we can handle something like: > > %(ad:key=embedded\:colon:key2=embedded\)paren) > > > > It's hard to make a nice interface to that which doesn't involve copying > > the quoted string out into a non-quoted version. But we don't want to be > > doing a bunch of parsing and allocation per-expansion. It's slow, and > > this expansion happens inside a fairly tight loop in many cases (e.g., > > during rev-list). > > Exactly the problem I ran into. > > > > > So I think the whole thing needs to be factored into two phases: a > > parsing phase where we build some internal parse tree, and then an > > expansion phase where we walk the parse tree for each commit (or ref, or > > whatever is being expanded). > > And exactly the solution I implemented. > At the time, it felt like needless bloat, but perhaps the problem has > gotten to the point where it's worth it. > > I assume rebasing what I have right now would be problematic, but it > sounds like it's about time to give it another go. > > The code was ever only in a "proof of concept" stage- I had it working > for single revisions, but in a way which wasn't yet compatible with any > of the other parts of log, iirc. > > I'll try getting a rebase started tonight, but in the mean time > I /think/ the latest code is at > https://github.com/wpalmer/git/tree/pretty/parse-format-poc > I'm home now, and apparently that should have been: https://github.com/wpalmer/git/tree/pretty/parse-format I assume the code is very hard to follow, as it was pretty much written with the mindset of "get it done now, fix it later". Looking into it again, I see that part of the reason I abandoned it was not being able to determine a good way to split things into logical commits. It's almost entirely an "everything works or nothing works" change. There was of course one section of it that I managed to split out, which is the "format aliases" code, already merged. I assume that this code has absolutely never been used since inclusion, as what it was actually intended to support was never finished. To see it in action, try: ./git log --pretty='%h%(opt-color ? %Cred) foo' uncommenting the //parts_debug(parsed, 0); line in pretty.c will show off the built format tree. > Warning: quite ugly. > > If you have comments, I would not mind hearing them (though off-list > might be better) > > > > > > Point is: we're going to keep having more and more format options, > > > I think that's a given. At some point, these short mnemonics will just > > > stop making sense, and it makes sense to have an escape plan when > > > that happens. > > > > Agreed. And I think it is possible to do it in a backwards-compatible > > way; support %(longname:options) for everything, and keep short-hands > > like %h and %ad for existing elements without options. > > > > -Peff > > -- 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