Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 06 2021, Felipe Contreras wrote:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > I mean, I see why. You don't want a typo of "master" as "maaster" to
>> > create a new "maaster" branch, so really that's out. But it really
>> > should be:
>> >
>> >     # -n or -N for --new / --new --force (the latter just in case of a
>> >     # race, and just for consistency)
>> >     git switch -n doesnotexist
>> 
>> I do not see why --new is better than --create;
>
> I do. Different languages equal different minds.
>
> New in this context is an adjetive: it is a modifier of a noun, in this
> case, a branch.
>
> Create is a verb; it's an action.
>
> Linguistically speaking they could not be more different.
>
>
> You don't do two verbs at a time. Either you sleep, or you eat, but you
> don't do both. Similarly you don't switch and create. Doesn't make
> sense.
>
> If you use natural language:
>
>   1. Git, switch to a new branch
>
>   2. Git, switch, create, branch
>
> One of these simply flows, the other is complete gibberish. I think
> anyone familiar with English can identify which is which.

Well, there's "Git, create a new branch and switch to it"

Also, there's the verb "make" in common use in git's command set
e.g. git-mktag, git-mktree, as well as mkdir(1), mkfifo(1) etc.

Perhaps we'd be better off with a git-mkbranch in this case & leave "git
branch" as an interrogation/change command.

In any case, unless we're talking about rewamping git's entire command
set (e.g. having a git-newtree or whatever) I'd like to think that it's
more productive to focus on making the commands/switches we have
internally consistent when possible, which is what I'm advocating in the
E-Mail that started this sub-thread.