Re: Can we clarify the purpose of `git diff -s`?

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Sergey Organov wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Sergey Organov wrote:
> >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> 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?

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:

  git show --raw

`---raw` can easily be achieved with `--no-raw`.

The only thing that's missing is `--+raw`, but I don't see how this:

  git show --+raw

Is more valuable than:

  git show --patch --raw

If you know the default of `git show` is `--patch`, and you want to add
`--raw`, then you can easily write the latter.

Doesn't this approach achieve everything you want to do? Albeit with a
different syntax.

-- 
Felipe Contreras