Hi,
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> 2009/3/20 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Santi Béjar wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/3/20 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> El 20/3/2009, a las 10:29, Johannes Schindelin escribió:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Often, it is quite interesting to inspect the branch tracked by a
> >> >> >given branch. This patch introduces a nice notation to get at the
> >> >> >tracked branch: 'BEL<branch>' can be used to access that tracked
> >> >> >branch.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A special shortcut 'BEL' refers to the branch tracked by the current
> >> >> >branch.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Suggested by Pasky and Shawn.
> >> >>
> >> >> What does BEL actually stand for? I read Shawn's suggestion, but it's
> >> >> not immediately clear to me what "BEL" means.
> >> >
> >> > It is the ASCII "bell" character, 007 (I always wanted to write that
> >> > magic identifier into a patch).
> >> >
> >> > FWIW you could type it in a regular ANSI terminal using Control-v
> >> > Control-g.
> >>
> >> Can we use branch^{origin} instead? It is longer to type, but uses the
> >> same syntax as the ^{tree}, ^{commit}, ^{tag} and you don't have to know
> >> how to produce the bell character.
> >
> > I think I addressed that issue already. (Summary: I do not like it)
> >
> > Let me spell it out if it was not obvious yet: the BEL patch was meant as
> > a more or less funny reminder that the issue is not solved and that I need
> > help.
>
> Would :%:foo work? I thought about the reserved prefix :/! , but :/!!
> isn't reserved so I don't think that would work. And it's pretty
> annoying to type too.
Or maybe :%foo?
That would have a rather nasty interaction with code I have in my tree to
refer to the cache-trees via ':<path>', but I guess I can live with that.
Ciao,
Dscho
