On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:24 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > If you define the pattern is not regexp but is glob, you can use > > > case/esac to do this without any forking. > > > > Yes, that would probably be OK for most purposes, though I admit my real > > love for regex support is the ability to use "." instead of space to > > avoid quoting arguments. ;) > > I use "?" for the same purpose for globs. For things that are casual, > I find that > it tends to make the end-user (read: my) experience simpler to use globs than > to use regexp, largely for your ".*" vs "*" reasons. Oh, I thought you were arguing for globs over regexes here just due to performance reasons. Most of my uses of this feature so far are just substring matches, so either globs or regexes would be fine for what I've done so far. Mostly, I was leaning towards regexes because I figured they were a bit more flexible and perhaps there might arise a usecase where that would be handy (plus Peff seemed to like them). But if you find the normal usecase easier with globs, maybe I should let you and Peff argue it out and then I'll resubmit with the preferred solution?
