Sergey Organov wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Sergey Organov wrote: > > > >> I'd rather think about generic interface for setting/clearing > >> (multiple) bits through CI than resorting to such convenience > >> tricks. Once that is in place, one will be able to say "I need these > >> bits only", "I need to turn these bit(s) on", and "I need to turn > >> these bit(s) off" conveniently and universally in any part of Git CI > >> where it's needed. > > > > It's possible to achieve both. > > > > Imagine your ideal explicit interface. In that interface the default > > is no output, so you *have* to specify all the bits, for example: > > > > git show --patch > > No, that's not what I meant. There is no point in making "git show" to > have no output by default, please see below. > > > > > Or: > > > > git show --raw > > > > In this ideal interface it's clear what the user wants to do, because > > it's explicit. > > > > git show --patch --raw --no-patch > > > > Agreed? > > > > My proposal achieves your ideal explicit interface, except when no > > format is specified (e.g. `git show`), a default format is chosen for > > the user, but that's *only* if the user hasn't specified any format. > > My point is that the default format should be selected as if it has been > provided by existing options, rather than by some magic hidden in the > code. But why? I don't see any benefit, only drawbacks. > > If you explicitely specify the output format that you want, then the > > default is irrelevant to you, thus you have your ideal explicit > > interface. > > That's not what I had in mind, sorry. It'd rather be something like: > > --raw: set "raw" bit and clear all the rest > --+raw set "raw" bit (== current --raw) > ---raw clear "raw" bit (== --no-raw) > > In this model > > git show > > would be just an alias for > > git log -n1 --patch --cc > > and no support for a separate command would be need in the first place. > > git show --raw > > would then produce expected output that makes sense due to the common > option processing rules, not because somebody had implemented some > arbitrary "defaults" for the command. But now you are at the mercy of those "arbitrary defaults". Let's say those defaults change, and now the default output of `git show` is `--stat`. Now to generate the same output you have to do: git show --raw in one version of git, and: git show --no-stat --patch --raw in another. This forces the user to know what is the default of every command. Why force this mental burden? If I want both patch and raw, then why not explicitely say so: git show --patch --raw And forget about the current defaults for that command. -- Felipe Contreras
