Victoria Dye <vdye@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I think `^{}fieldname` would be a good candidate, but it's *extremely*
Gaah. Why? fieldname^{} I may understand, but in the prefix form?
In any case, has anybody considered that we may be better off to
declare that "*field" peeling a tag only once is a longstanding bug?
IOW, can we not add "fully peel" command line option or a new syntax
and instead just "fix" the bug to fully peel when "*field" is asked
for?
An application that cares about handling a chain of annotatetd tags
would want to be able to say "this is the outermost tag's
information; one level down, the tag was signed by this person;
another level down, the tag was signed by this person, etc." which
would mean either
* we have a syntax that shows the information from all levels
(e.g., "**taggername" may say "Victoria\nPatrick\nGitster")
* we have a syntax that allows to specify how many levels to peel,
(e.g., "*0*taggername" may be the same as "taggername",
"*1*taggername" may be the same as "*taggername") plus some
programming construct like variables and loops.
but the repertoire being proposed that consists only of "peel only
once" and "peel all levels" is way too insufficient.
Note that I do not advocate for allowing inspection of each levels
separately. Quite the contrary. I would say that --format=<>
placeholder should not be a programming language to satisify such a
niche need. And my conclusion from that stance is "peel once" plus
"peel all" are already one level too many, and "peel once" was a
very flawed implementation from day one, when 9f613ddd (Add
git-for-each-ref: helper for language bindings, 2006-09-15)
introduced it.
