Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > So everything is working as designed, or at least explainable. But I > think there is some room for improvement. A backslash that isn't > followed by a glob meta-character _is_ still a meta character (your > "a\b" would be globbing for "ab"). But it's useless enough that I think > it shouldn't be enough to trigger the "oh, you probably meant this as a > pathspec" DWIM rule. This sounds sensible. > We _could_ also say "even though this could technically be a pathspec > because of its metacharacter, it looks vaguely enough like a > path-in-tree revision that we shouldn't guess". That I'm less > comfortable with, just because it makes the heuristics even more > magical. Not just it becomes more magical, I am afraid that the code to implement such a heuristics would be fragile and become a source of unnecessary bugs. Let's not go there. I should learn to use "working as designed or at least explainable" more often in my responses, by the way. That's quite a useful and good phrase ;-)
