On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

This patch allows 'HEAD@' to be the same as 'HEAD@{0}', and similarly with
'master@'.

I'm a bit reluctant to this. It looks like incomplete syntax to me as
'@' has always been followed by '{'. Can we have the lone '@' candy
but reject master@ and HEAD@? There's no actual gain in writing
master@ vs master@{0}.

That's what I tried first, but it just didn't feel elegant to have one
check for this case only. foo@ does follow naturally, and it doesn't
hurt.

I'd say it's a side effect. This would stop both @{-1}@ and master@.
Whitespace corruption expected.

-- 8< --

diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c
index 3820f28..58bdb42 100644
--- a/sha1_name.c
+++ b/sha1_name.c

@@ -437,11 +437,13 @@ static int get_sha1_basic(const char *str, int

len, unsigned char *sha1)
        static const char *warn_msg = "refname '%.*s' is ambiguous.";
        char *real_ref = NULL;
        int refs_found = 0;
-       int at, reflog_len;
+       int at, reflog_len, short_head;

        if (len == 40 && !get_sha1_hex(str, sha1))
                return 0;

+       short_head = len == 1 && str[0] == '@';
+
        /* basic@{time or number or -number} format to query ref-log */
        reflog_len = at = 0;
        if (len && str[len-1] == '}') {

@@ -475,6 +477,8 @@ static int get_sha1_basic(const char *str, int

len, unsigned char *sha1)
                refs_found = dwim_ref("HEAD", 4, sha1, &real_ref);
        } else if (reflog_len)
                refs_found = dwim_log(str, len, sha1, &real_ref);
+       else if (short_head)
+               refs_found = dwim_ref("HEAD", 4, sha1, &real_ref);
        else
                refs_found = dwim_ref(str, len, sha1, &real_ref);

-- 8< --
--
Duy