Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 于2021年5月16日周日 上午11:55写道：
>
> 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.
>
Well, it’s truly more useful to provide long name atoms for the "log" family,
But if we need to establish a unified interface for --format, shouldn't
we extend it base on `ref-filter`?
At present, the scalability of the implementation in `ref-filter` is better,
but it does not support two-letter shorthands atoms...
--
ZheNing Hu
