Hi Duy, On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Matthieu Moy > <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I think the syntax should be design to allow arbitrary boolean > >>> expression later if needed. > >> > >> I would be against that. We may extend it more in future, but it > >> should be under control, not full boolean expressions. > > > > Why? > > > > I'm not saying we absolutely need it, but if we allow several kinds of > > conditions (gitdir-is:... and others in the future), then it's natural > > to allow combining them, and arbitrary boolean expression is both simple > > and powerful (operators and/or/not and parenthesis and you have > > everything you'll ever need). > > For starter, we don't want another debate "python vs ruby vs lua vs > ..." as the scripting language :) (for the record I vote Scheme! maybe > with infix syntax) FWIW I do not think that Matthieu implied that this has to be implemented. But it does not make sense to slam the door shut prematurely, either. Meaning: the more doors you can keep open with the new syntax, the better. Ciao, Dscho -- 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