On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> This patch allows 'HEAD@' to be the same as 'HEAD@{0}', and similarly with
>>>> 'master@'.
>>>
>>> I'm a bit reluctant to this. It looks like incomplete syntax to me as
>>> '@' has always been followed by '{'. Can we have the lone '@' candy
>>> but reject master@ and HEAD@? There's no actual gain in writing
>>> master@ vs master@{0}.
>>
>> That's what I tried first, but it just didn't feel elegant to have one
>> check for this case only. foo@ does follow naturally, and it doesn't
>> hurt.
>
> I'd say it's a side effect. This would stop both @{-1}@ and master@.
> Whitespace corruption expected.
Yeah, this is what I did first, but if since there's no relation with
anything else, '@' could be any other character.
--
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