Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:35:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
>> > 'git cat-file' (-t | -s) [--allow-unknown-type] <object>
>> > 'git cat-file' (--batch | --batch-check | --batch-command) [--batch-all-objects]
>> > [--buffer] [--follow-symlinks] [--unordered]
>> > - [--textconv | --filters]
>> > + [--textconv | --filters] [-z]
>>
>> Is "-z" useful with any other option, or is it useful only in
>> combination with one of the three --batch-*? The above suggests the
>> former.
>
> It only makes sense with `--batch`-related options. But doesn't the
> above suggest the latter, not the former? That synopsis line begins
> with:
>
> 'git cat-file' (--batch | --batch-check | --batch-command) ...
>
> which made me think that this was the invocation for batch-related
> options, and only listed options that made sense with a `--batch` mode
> of one kind or another.
Ah, yes you are absolutely right. I misread the synopsis.
> I think the helper should probably be something more like:
>
> echo_with_nul () {
> echo "$@" | tr '\n' '\0'
> }
I think you meant
printf "%s\n" "$@" | tr ..
but then I wonder if
printf "%s\000" "$@"
would work better?
>> > + printf "HEAD:newline${LF}embedded" >in &&
>> > + git cat-file --batch-check -z <in >actual &&
>>
>> As I already said, I suspect that new users who know how our path
>> quoting works would expect c-quoted path would work just fine
>> without using "-z". It is not a reason to refuse "-z" to exist,
>> though.
>
> Yeah. I think we can do both, if there is a need.
Even though we know it is needed already, it is unfortunately way
too late now X-<, because existing scripts know that paths are not
taken as c-quoted, even though people would naturally expect that
paths are, and satisfying the latter expectation now means breaking
existing scripts.
In any case, as long as "-z" is designed right from the day one, it
would be fine ;-)
Thanks.
