Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Obviously, I named it '%1' since it expands into the _first_ component
>> of the (slash-separated) shorthand.
>
> OK, I can buy something like
>
> %*
> refs/%*
> refs/heads/%*
> ...
> refs/remotes/%*/HEAD
> refs/remotes/%1/%2
> refs/peers/%1/heads/%2
>
> that is, for a pattern that has %*, we feed the end-user string as a
> whole, and for a pattern that has %1 thru %N, we find an appropriate
> way to chop the end-user string into N pieces (e.g. nick/name would
> be split into %1 = nick, %2 = name, while foo/bar/baz might have two
> possibilities, <%1, %2> = <foo, bar/baz> or <foo/bar, baz>). The
> earlier ones on the above list can even be written with their %*
> substituted with %1 if we go that route.
Just to make sure.
Please do not let "two possibilities" stop you. As I said in the
nearby thread, I do not necessarily insist that we must try all N
possibilities. "We find an appropriate way" could be just "we
always chop at the first slash, and %1 is what comes before it, %2
is what comes after it".
That will close the possibility for us to use %1 thru %N (N is
limited to 2), but it still is "We have %1 and we have %2, both fall
into the same 'path components, numbered from left to right'
category", and justifies the use of %1 ("one", not "el").
So still no objection to %1 from me.
> And that makes perfect sense, and is exactly the kind of "you plan
> to have %2 and %3 that falls into the same category as %1" I was
> asking you about in the message.
>
> So, no more objection to %1 from me, if that is the direction you
> are taking us.
--
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