Re: [RFC] The design of new pathspec features

Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] writes:

Pathspec mnemonic
=================

Are :(literal) and :(glob) used often enough to deserve a short
mnemonic (like :/ is equivalent to :(top))? Which symbols should be
used?

I do not think we should discuss this before letting people gain
experience with various forms of magic; otherwise we would at best
end up with a concensus guess among uninformed.

New way to specify long pathspec magic
======================================

While testing the pathspec magic code, I grow tired of quoting :(glob)
every time because '(' is the start of a new shell. Which is one of
the reasons I introduce --[no]glob-pathspecs. Still I'd like a way to
specify long pathspec magic without quoting.

Is this a real issue, though?  Often interesting pathspecs do have
shell globs in them and we have to quote them anyway.

How about making ":q/xxx/" an equivalence of ":(xxx)"?

A moderately strong no from here.

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

New way to specify long pathspec magic
======================================

While testing the pathspec magic code, I grow tired of quoting :(glob)
every time because '(' is the start of a new shell. Which is one of
the reasons I introduce --[no]glob-pathspecs. Still I'd like a way to
specify long pathspec magic without quoting.

Is this a real issue, though?  Often interesting pathspecs do have
shell globs in them and we have to quote them anyway.

:(icase) often won't (unless you combine with :(glob)). If we turn
grep's --max-depth feature into pathspec magic (feasible, just not
sure if it's actually useful), it won't need quoting either.

Even with :(glob), because of the complexity of the pathspec, it's
less likely to match anything and be expanded by bash, so no quoting
required.

quoted

How about making ":q/xxx/" an equivalence of ":(xxx)"?

A moderately strong no from here.

-- 
Duy