On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] wrote:

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

quoted

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.

Yeah, this is what I did first, but if since there's no relation with
anything else, '@' could be any other character.

-- 
Felipe Contreras