Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> It's not hard to do. The below patch makes "." equivalent to HEAD and
> ".U" -> "@{u}". Refs are not supposed to have '.' at the beginning, so
> it's easy ...
How is the equivalent of master..@{u} expressed? master...U? How is
it disambiguated from a symmetric difference between master and U?
There are reasons why some characters are forbidden from appearing
at certain places in refname component. Anybody who designs a new
syntax needs to think _why_.
The restriction that a @ in refname cannot be followed by { is for
the same kind of disambiguation. I do not mind a way to spell HEAD
with shorter than 4 keystrokes, and as I said I suspect "@" may be
the least bad one among what people may come up with in this thread,
but I do not think we can explain it as "@ is a synonym to HEAD"
[*1*]. We need to see if we can make the explanation we will give
to end users is understandable.
[Footnote]
*1* I do not think "@ is a new synonym for HEAD" would not be a good
explanation. Some questions you should ask yourselves to see why:
"git update-ref HEAD $commit" is accepted. If @ is a synonym for
HEAD, "git update-ref @ $commit" should work exactly the same way,
but is it desirable? Would we have $GIT_DIR/@ as the result? How
about "git symbolic-ref"? Would @@{4} and HEAD@{4} be the same?
--
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