Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:
Why not
%[w(-1,4,4)%s%+b]
Yeah. As you said "subject unwrapped and body indented" or something like
that, I excluded that part outside the indentation, but log output indents
everything, so placing both inside %[w] would be correct.
(i.e. %+ is this empty line between subject and body, if it exists).
As %+ is to add LF iff the next expansion is non-empty, it must always be
followed by an expansion, i.e. %something. That means "%+%something" is
unnecessary verbose and "%+something" is enough. "%+anything" syntax,
just like "%[func()anything]" syntax, is not limited to any particular
expansion.
The %+x seems a bit strange... but I guess implementing conditional
expansion a la shell or rpn spec/queryformat would be out of question
(i.e. %?s:+ )...
Why not?
I can see us doing something like %[conditional%|iftrue%|iffalse%] quite
easily, now we have the "nested" variant of the strbuf_expand()
infrastructure.
But that is not the primary focus of the two patch series I've
demonstrated so far.