On 2022-02-16 at 07:00:24, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Just so you know where my confusion arises from: Your updated text has > the structure (as I read it) > > if ... set or unspecified or if auto then ... detected ... and LF > > It is unclear whether the 'then' conditions apply only to 'if auto'. > Even if the additional 'if' in the middle makes me think that the > 'then's apply only to the 'auto' case, it is sufficently vage because in > my mental model there is not much difference between an 'unset' and a > set-to-'auto' attribute, and I wonder why the 'then's should not apply > to the 'unset' case as well. > > Moreover, after re-reading the text, I notice that text may be read as > "this attribute has an effect only if <conditions>" where <conditions> > basically means "always except for when the 'if auto' case is not met", > right? Would it perhaps be better to write "has no effect if <very > specific condition>"? The situation is that eol is in effect if and only if: * text is set; * text is unspecified; or * text is auto, the file is detected as text, and the file has LF line endings in the index. Alternately, it has no effect if and only if: * text is unset; * text is auto and the file is detected as binary; or * text is auto and the file is detected as text and has CRLF line endings. I'm not sure one reads significantly easier than the other. I slightly prefer the former because it has fewer conditions with multiple nested entries, though. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
