Re: [PATCH 2/2] pretty: support placeholders %C+ and %C-
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:54:49
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
%C+ tells the next specifiers that color is preferred. %C- the opposite. So far only %H, %h and %d support coloring. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <redacted> --- Documentation/pretty-formats.txt | 2 ++ pretty.c | 13 ++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt index e3d8a83..6e287d6 100644 --- a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt +++ b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt@@ -142,6 +142,8 @@ The placeholders are: - '%Cblue': switch color to blue - '%Creset': reset color - '%C(...)': color specification, as described in color.branch.* config option +- '%C+': enable coloring on the following placeholders if supported +- '%C-': disable coloring on the following placeholders
OK, so typically you replace some format placeholder "%?" in your format string with "%C+%?%C-", because you cannot get away with replacing it with "%C+%? and other things in the format you do not know if they support coloring%C-". If that is the case, does it really make sense to have %C-? It smells as if it makes more sense to make _all_ %? placeholder reset the effect of %C+ after they are done (even the ones that they themselves do not color their own output elements), so that you can mechanically replace "%?" with "%C+%?". I dunno.