Aaron M Watson <watsona4@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Aaron M Watson <watsona4@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Instead of referencing "stash@{n}" explicitly, it can simply be
> referenced as "n".
> Most users only reference stashes by their position
> in the stash stask (what I refer to as the "index").
It is unclear if the first sentence is a statement of the fact, an
expression of desire, or something else. With the current codebase,
it cannot simply be referenced as "n", and you either "wish it were
possible", or "make it possible to do so", or perhaps little bit of
both.
This is why we tend to use imperative mood to give an order to the
codebase to "be like so" to make it clear.
Perhaps
Instead of referencing "stash@{n}" explicitly, make it possible to
simply reference as "n". Most users only reference stashes by their
position in the stash stask (what I refer to as the "index" here).
or something like that (which is what I tenatively rewritten this to
while queuing).
> @@ -404,6 +403,9 @@ parse_flags_and_rev()
> die "$(eval_gettext "unknown option: \$opt")"
> FLAGS="${FLAGS}${FLAGS:+ }$opt"
> ;;
> + *)
> + REV="${REV}${REV:+ }'$opt'"
> + ;;
> esac
> done
>
> @@ -422,6 +424,15 @@ parse_flags_and_rev()
> ;;
> esac
>
> + case "$1" in
> + *[!0-9]*)
> + :
> + ;;
> + *)
> + set -- "${ref_stash}@{$1}"
> + ;;
> + esac
I can see that you inherited the brokenness from an existing one in
the earlier hunk, but case arms in these two case statements are
indented one level too deep. It would be good to fix it in a
follow-up patch (not a reroll of this patch).
Thanks. Will queue.