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

[Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>]

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.

Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov