Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Sergey Organov wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > 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".
>>
>> No, see below.
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> No: --raw in my model clears all the flags but --raw, so
>>
>> git show --raw
>>
>> will produce exactly the same result: raw output only.
>
> But that {--,--+,---} notion doesn't exist, and I think it's safe to say it
> will never exist. So, could we limit or solution-space to those solutions that
> could have the potential to be merged?
I didn't expect it to exist any time soon, just showed a different way
of options design.
>
> What you suggest could be easily achieved with:
>
> git show --silent --raw
>
> But because no other format is explicitely specified, following my notion of
> defaults, that's the same as:
The problem that I tried to fight is this notion of defaults that is
somewhat special, so, if I allow for it, the rest of my suggestions
becomes pointless, and without the "defaults" with non-trivial behavior[*]
git show --raw
won't work as expected provided --raw still just sets "raw" bit and
doesn't clear all the rest.
What I described was not meant as an immediate proposal to quickly fix
current CI. Please don't try to get that as such.
[*] Defaults with trivial behavior is just initializing of internal
variable holding flags with specific value, that is exactly the same as
putting corresponding option(s) at the beginning.
Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov
