Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> I too find that "@ is a shortcut for HEAD" looks ugly both at the UI
>> level and at the implementation level [*1*], but as long as we have
>> it, it is good to try to be consistent and allow "@" everywhere
>> where one would write "HEAD" in places where it is syntacitically
>> infeasible---at least we would be consistently ugly that way ;-).
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Using "@" is rather "illogical" than "ugly", and at that point it is
not so subjective.
@-mark leads a suffix that applies some "magic" to what comes before
it (e.g. next@{1}, maint@{2.weeks.ago}, and master@{-1}). Making @
a synonym for HEAD means '@' sometimes means a ref and most of the
time means the introducer of magic that applies to a ref.
Worse yet, @{4} does not refer to HEAD@{4} but refers to the 4-th
previous commit the current branch pointed at, so a mnemonic for the
end user to remember the distinction between the two is that a bare
"@" is different from HEAD, which is a total opposite X-<.
This is all water under the bridge, though ;-)
> Given that, your suggested title makes more sense.
Sounds good.
