Re: [PATCH/RFC v2 0/2] add regex match flags to git describe

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore <mostynb@opera.com>]

On 12/31/2015 01:23 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Mostyn Bramley-Moore <mostynb@opera.com> writes:
>
>> OK, brainstorming a bit, how about either of these:
>>
>> 1)
>> --match-pattern-type=<glob|fixed-strings|basic-regexp|extended-regexp|perl-regexp>
>>
>> It's a bit lengthy (maybe --match-type would be sufficient), but I
>> like that the value names are shared with git grep etc option names.
>> And it seems future-proof- if we ever need to support different
>> pattern types for other arguments, a --foo-pattern-type flag could be
>> added and make obvious sense.
>
> Swapping the option key and value may not be a bad idea, but one
> problem that the above does not solve, which I outlined in the
> message you are responding to, is that "match-pattern-type" does not
> give any hint that this is about affecting the match that is done to
> "refs", e.g. you cannot tell in
>
>    $ git mgrep --match-pattern-type=perl-regexp -e foo --refs 'release_*'
>
> if the perl-regexp is to be used for matching branch names or for
> matching the strings the command looks for in the trees of the
> matching branches.

There is a hint: --foo-pattern-type applies only to --foo.

In your mgrep example --match-pattern-type would apply to --match 
patterns only, and if we choose to implement it then --refs-pattern-type 
would apply to --refs patterns only.

eg:
$ git mgrep --match '^foo' --match-pattern-type=perl-regexp --refs 
'release_*' --refs-pattern-type=glob

> Magic pattern annotation like we do for pathspecs Duy raised may not
> be a bad idea, either, and would probably be easier to teach people.
> Just like in Perl "(?i)$any_pattern" is a way to introduce the case
> insensitive match with $any_pattern, we may be able to pick an
> extensible magic syntax and decorate the pattern you would specify
> for matching refnames to tell Git what kind of pattern it is, e.g.
>
>    $ git mgrep -P -e foo --refs '/?glob/release_*'
>
> I am not suggesting that we must use /?<pattern type name>/ prefix
> as the "extensible magic syntax" here--I am just illustrating what
> I mean by "extensible magic syntax".

I hadn't seen the pathspec magic patterns before- interesting.  We could 
possibly share syntax with pathspecs, ie
:(?pattern-options...)pattern

Would this be confusing for commands that already have --perl-regexp 
etc?  What should happen if you specify both --perl-regexp and and a 
different type of pattern like :(glob)foo (error out, I suppose)?


-Mostyn.
-- 
Mostyn Bramley-Moore
TV and Connected Devices
Opera Software ASA
mostynb@opera.com