Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > What if you have other atoms that need worktrees? E.g., does > %(worktreepath:foo) use the same used_atom slot? What if we have another > worktree-related atom? > ... > And that one is a good example where we _do_ need the global, because we > already have multiple atoms pulling from it. I guess that we broke the original atom design by mistake when we added ":<modifiers>" support. There should have been one layer of indirection that binds the instances of the same atom with different modifiers together---I agree with you that we cannot avoid globals without fixing that mistake first. Thanks.
