On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
[off-list ref] wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
If you accept only "@" but not "master@", that behaviour needs a
wrong world model to understand and justify (one of which is "@ is a
synonym for HEAD"). If your rule is "In $anything@{$n}, you can
drop {$n} when $n==0", then HEAD@{0} becomes HEAD@ and master@{0}
becomes master@, and @{0} becomes @ naturally.
Besides, you're going in the wrong direction this time. You are
trying to fit an explanation to something that is useless. How is
master@ useful?
It's not. The same way master^0^0~4 is not useful, yet it's works;
it's a logical result from the syntax.
--
Felipe Contreras