Re: [PATCH v3 17/17] Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers'
From: Christian Couder <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:59:46
From: Junio C Hamano <redacted> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 17/17] Documentation: add documentation for 'git interpret-trailers' Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:20:18 -0800
Christian Couder [off-list ref] writes:quoted
quoted
quoted
+'git interpret-trailers' [--trim-empty] [--infile=file] [<token[=value]>...]Would it be more consistent with existing documentation to format this as so? [--infile=<file>] [<token>[=<value>]]...No, it would be very inconsistent: $ grep '\.\.\.\]' *.txt | wc -l 103 $ grep '\]\.\.\.' *.txt | wc -l 0I have a feeling that you are missing the point Eric is making.
Yeah I realize I missed some of his points. Sorry about that.
The value given to the --infile option can be anything, i.e. 'file' there is a placeholder, hence "--infile=<file>" not "--infile=file" as you wrote.
Ok, I agree with that.
Also I think "[<token>[=<value>]]..." is the correct way to spell that there can be 0 or more "<token>[=<value>]".
Perhaps but it is not very consistent with what there is in other synopsis strings. For example the commands that accept a path have a synopsis that ends with "[--] [<path>...]" and not "[--] [<path>]...". Perhaps [(<token>[=<value>])...] is more correct, but not worth the added complexity.
"<token[=value]>" in the original does not make any sense, as <> is meant to say "this thing is a placeholder", and we do not try to say, with the string inside <>, what shape that placeholder takes. In fact '=' part is _not_ a placeholder but is required syntactically when you want to supply a value to the token, so the original doubly is incorrect.
Yeah perhaps, except that in the code ':' is accepted instead of '=', and the documention says that. So perhaps [(<token>[(=|:)<value>])...] is even more correct.
I find it a bad taste to allow unbound set of <token> on the LHS of '=' on the command line, but that is a separate issue in the design, not in the documentation of the design.
I don't understand this sentence, sorry. Thanks, Christian.