Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Perhaps. Perhaps not. I may be misreading Junio's responses in this
> thread, but it didn't seem like he was necessarily opposed to the
> change.
I do not care too much about this issue to expend my political
capital on enforcing my preference ;-)
FWIW, my preference in an ideal world would be to limit "-" as a
short-hand to go back to previous (i.e. "checkout -"), which can be
justified with similarity to "cd -", but do not add any more use.
If we could, I would even deprecate "merge -", "rebase -", etc. that
can not be justified with similarity to "cd -", but I think we came
too far for that.
"-" cannot be used as a universal "the branch we last 'git checkout'
out of" notation because some commands and people expect "-" to be
something else, like "read from the standard input". The only two
reasons this pops up from time to time is because "checkout -"
exists and because "@{-N}" notation, which is accepted everywhere
uniformly and does not have problems "-" has, is not very well
known.
> A documentation update as in [1] would be a good idea, though,
> if resubmitted.
Yeah, [1] talked about both "@{-1}" and "-", but limiting it to the
former may make sense. It feels a bit odd that we single out "git
branch" and describe "@{-1}" there, when the notation is universally
available, though.
$ git grep -l '@{-' -- Documentation/ :\!Documentation/\*/\*
shows hits only in check-ref-format, checkout, switch, and worktree,
but the mention in "revisions.txt" is included in all commands in
the "log" family of commands. If we add one to "branch", we should
at least teach "@{-1}" to the documentation of merge, rebase, and
revert. The hits we see here
$ git grep -l -B1 '"@{-' \*.c
builtin/checkout.c
builtin/merge.c
builtin/rebase.c
builtin/revert.c
builtin/worktree.c
all are about replacing "-" the user typed with "@{-1}".
Continuing the "thinking aloud" a bit, I _think_ this tells us these
things:
* @{-1} has way too many letters to type to be liked by users, who
won't learn or remember what they do not appreciate (and do not
blame them---it is a bad notation).
* @{-<n>} may have been a generalized way that satisfied geeky mind
while being implemented, but the users only need the "last one"
and no such generalization.
If it is too late for a more easy-to-type-and-pleasant-to-eyes
notation, perhaps "@-", that does not have downsides of "-" or
"@{-1}", I have to wonder.
Thanks.
