Ian Wienand <iwienand@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 08:29:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> ... if the reader truly understands "the alias gives the command and >> its leading arguments, to which the invocation can supply even more >> arguments", the reader wouldn't be writing such a command line to >> begin with, no? >> >> So I find the example a bit suboptimal. Hopefully additional >> explanation in patch 2/3 stressed on that point well enough with >> much more stress than it talks about the implementation detail of >> using "sh -c" and "$@", so that readers who read it would not even >> dream of writing such an alias in the first place. > > Right; I was seeing this in a more convoluted way via our tool but > essentially the same issue. I was just looking for the simplest thing > that also gave the syntax error output, which I thought was something > people might search for (the "unexpected "$@" stuff). > > Should I just leave as is? If I found as-is would be good enough, I wouldn't have been commenting on this. Even in this third iteration, I still didn't see the added documentation talk about the principle behind the design, i.e. what you write after the "git your-alias" are appended to the command line to be used as additional arguments.
