ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> My current thinking is this:
>
> First add a new member `short_name` in `struct valid_atom`,
> Then we can share a valid_atom item for the long name of
> an atom such as `%(authoremail)` and the short name of
> the atom `%ae` (%aE is not considered at the time).
> Something like:
>
> [ATOM_AUTHOREMAIL] = { "ae", "authoremail", SOURCE_OBJ, FIELD_STR,
> person_email_atom_parser },
My assumption has always been that when enriching "--format" of the
"log" family (e.g. "status", "show") with ingredients from the
"for-each-ref" family (e.g. "branch", "tag"), we would adopt the
notation the latter uses, i.e. "git log --format='%s %(notes)'",
with the full intention that eventually users would choose between
the synonyms to make it "git log --format='%(subject) %(notes)'" for
consistency, without wasting brain cycles to come up with and to
remember two-letter shorthands that will not scale.
