From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-grep: --and to combine patterns with and instead of or Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:56:24 -0700 Message-ID: <7v3bdnkrfb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060625184757.f8273820.tihirvon@gmail.com> <20060629222009.GA9310@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <7vejx7oa3x.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v7j2zmgbu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 30 09:56:35 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwDra-0000BM-Vd for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:56:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751392AbWF3H40 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:56:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751450AbWF3H40 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:56:26 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38]:36841 "EHLO fed1rmmtao01.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751392AbWF3H4Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:56:25 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060630075625.TLXP22974.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:56:25 -0400 To: Matthias Lederhofer In-Reply-To: (Matthias Lederhofer's message of "Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:46:53 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Matthias Lederhofer writes: > (Junio: please reply to this one, forgot the Cc in the first one :/) Huh? >> I personally feel FOO should not even exist. An option that >> covers the entire expression to make operator precedence in it >> sounds quite evil. >> >> I would say make --and bind tighter than --or and use parentheses as >> needed. > Ok, perhaps changing operator precedence is a bit much. What do you > think of that then: > ... I see you are trying hard to think of a way to justify your original prefix "--and" (or --FOO) implementation, but I simply do not see much point in that. I doubt changing the default operator from --or to --and is less confusing than changing the precedence for the users, so you would hear the same "I personally feel FOO should not even exist" objection from me.