Re: [PATCH 1/7] Documentation: do not use regexp in refspec descriptions

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Anders Melchiorsen [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The syntax is now easier to read, though wrong: all parts of the
refspec are actually optional.

It probably is easier to read, but strictly speaking it is not
wrong. The two parts, <src> and <dst>, _always_ exist, even though
either or both of them can be an empty string.

The colon is not required, though the format suggests that it is.

quoted

 <refspec>...::
 	The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is
-	`+?<src>:<dst>`; that is, an optional plus `{plus}`, followed
+	`[+]<src>:<dst>`; that is, an optional plus `{plus}`, followed
 	by the source ref, followed by a colon `:`, followed by
 	the destination ref.

I am wondering if it would be clearer and easier to understand if we just
said:

  	The canonical format of a <refspec> parameter is
	an optional plus `{plus}`, followed by the source ref,
        followed by a colon `:`, followed by the destination ref.
	Find various forms of refspecs in examples section.

I think that is an improvement. Removing the word "canonical" would be
even better, IMHO.


Anders.