On Mon, Feb 21 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I too find the syntax really annoying to type.
>>
>> I wonder if we couldn't say that:
>> ...
>
> We could, but I do not think I like any of it, except for adding
> "@-". We learned that we do not need @{-4} generalization and
> people only want "the last one" with nothing else.
FWIW I often use @{-2}, @{-3} or equivalent, but never @{-28} or
whatever.
Not often.
But I would very much appreciate @u if it existed. I use @{u} a lot, and
with the shift-key dancing it's a hassle to typ it.
> the same mistake without learning any from the lesson to take any
> random string that follows @ as if it is inside @{}, I am afraid.
I think we should be careful to squat on namespaces needlessly, but if
we can't think of a reason for why we wouldn't make typing some of these
shortcuts easier...
IOW can we think of a reason we'd ever use @1 @-1 or @u for anything
else? It would be *very* confusing to add a new @{u} that behaved
differently from @u, whatever such a @u would mean.
> P.S. It seems it is holiday around here and I hear it is at GitHub,
> too, so I expect the day to be slow and my presence may be sporadic.
*nod*
