From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] add '%d' pretty format specifier to show decoration Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:37:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20080905003710.GA17731@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20080903191217.GA31195@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v4p4xat3v.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080903203616.GB32223@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vsksh9c9m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <48BF0A5A.2040502@lsrfire.ath.cx> <20080904035139.GA28123@sigill.intra.peff.net> <48C002FB.9010401@lsrfire.ath.cx> <48C055B3.3030204@lsrfire.ath.cx> <20080905001133.GA17463@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v7i9r1lnm.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: =?utf-8?B?UmVuw6k=?= Scharfe , Michael Dressel , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 05 02:38:26 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KbPLG-0003L8-6m for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 02:38:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751825AbYIEAhN (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:37:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751894AbYIEAhN (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:37:13 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:2221 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751584AbYIEAhM (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:37:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 13476 invoked by uid 111); 5 Sep 2008 00:37:11 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:37:11 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:37:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v7i9r1lnm.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 05:28:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > The whole series looks good to me, and I am happy if it is applied > > as-is. The only question I might raise is whether we want to use "%d" > > for this, or use something longer to anticipate a collision with other > > "d" words (I think you mentioned "describe" at one point). > > How about using "%d()" for this one, so that later enhancements can > specify their features inside parentheses? I am slightly opposed to that, just because it then is very inconsistent with the other formatting specifiers. I think it is worth introducing a new, consistent syntax, providing that syntax for all specifiers (e.g., %(body), %(decorate)), and then saying "the existing %b, %d, et al are still available and will be available forever. BUT they will never grow the more interesting features like %(body:wrap=80) or %(decorate:delim=, ). -Peff