Will Palmer <wmpalmer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> What I'm thinking now is that "@^{/foo}" can be thought of as a
> potential "shorthand-form" of what could be "@^{/!(m=foo)}", in which
> case "@^{/!-foo}" could similarly be thought of as a potential
> shorthand-form of what could be "@^{/!(m-foo)}".
Ah, our messages crossed, it seems. Yes, I think we are on the same
page, and it is sensible to think of "/!-string" as a short-hand for
the more complete syntax that uses descriptive word, not mnemonic,
e.g. "/!(unmatch=string)", that the old thread envisioned.
I think it is OK (and probably preferrable) to start with only
"/!-string" without the long-hand, as we do not know how multiple
long-hand instructions should interact with each other.
Thanks.
--
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