Re: [PATCH v17 05/14] ref-filter: introduce match_atom_name()

Karthik Nayak [off-list ref] writes:

It is one thing that the user can actually do the check themselves,
but doesn't it make more sense that when we're using colon we expect a
value after it, and something like %(color:) makes no sense when color
specifically needs a value after the colon.

If you imagine the format being built by scripts (we are talking
about plumbing feature --format here), I think you will realize that
it perfectly makes sense to allow them to say "%(atom:$modifiation)"
without having to worry about a special case where $modification
happened to end up being empty.  So no, I do not agree with your
statement at all.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Karthik Nayak [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

It is one thing that the user can actually do the check themselves,
but doesn't it make more sense that when we're using colon we expect a
value after it, and something like %(color:) makes no sense when color
specifically needs a value after the colon.

If you imagine the format being built by scripts (we are talking
about plumbing feature --format here), I think you will realize that
it perfectly makes sense to allow them to say "%(atom:$modifiation)"
without having to worry about a special case where $modification
happened to end up being empty.  So no, I do not agree with your
statement at all.

Ah! that makes sense, thanks :)

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak