From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>,
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr>
Subject: Re: Can we clarify the purpose of `git diff -s`?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 14:59:22 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <645d572a47e5b_57c4e294dc@chronos.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mt2azkdp.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
Sergey Organov wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Sergey Organov wrote:
> >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Sergey Organov wrote:
> >> >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> > Sergey Organov wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I'd rather think about generic interface for setting/clearing
> >> >> >> (multiple) bits through CI than resorting to such convenience
> >> >> >> tricks. Once that is in place, one will be able to say "I need these
> >> >> >> bits only", "I need to turn these bit(s) on", and "I need to turn
> >> >> >> these bit(s) off" conveniently and universally in any part of Git CI
> >> >> >> where it's needed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's possible to achieve both.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Imagine your ideal explicit interface. In that interface the default
> >> >> > is no output, so you *have* to specify all the bits, for example:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > git show --patch
> >> >>
> >> >> No, that's not what I meant. There is no point in making "git show" to
> >> >> have no output by default, please see below.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Or:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > git show --raw
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In this ideal interface it's clear what the user wants to do, because
> >> >> > it's explicit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > git show --patch --raw --no-patch
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Agreed?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My proposal achieves your ideal explicit interface, except when no
> >> >> > format is specified (e.g. `git show`), a default format is chosen for
> >> >> > the user, but that's *only* if the user hasn't specified any format.
> >> >>
> >> >> My point is that the default format should be selected as if it has been
> >> >> provided by existing options, rather than by some magic hidden in the
> >> >> code.
> >> >
> >> > But why?
> >> >
> >> > I don't see any benefit, only drawbacks.
> >> >
> >> >> > If you explicitely specify the output format that you want, then the
> >> >> > default is irrelevant to you, thus you have your ideal explicit
> >> >> > interface.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's not what I had in mind, sorry. It'd rather be something like:
> >> >>
> >> >> --raw: set "raw" bit and clear all the rest
> >> >> --+raw set "raw" bit (== current --raw)
> >> >> ---raw clear "raw" bit (== --no-raw)
> >> >>
> >> >> In this model
> >> >>
> >> >> git show
> >> >>
> >> >> would be just an alias for
> >> >>
> >> >> git log -n1 --patch --cc
> >> >>
> >> >> and no support for a separate command would be need in the first place.
> >> >>
> >> >> git show --raw
> >> >>
> >> >> would then produce expected output that makes sense due to the common
> >> >> option processing rules, not because somebody had implemented some
> >> >> arbitrary "defaults" for the command.
> >> >
> >> > But now you are at the mercy of those "arbitrary defaults".
> >>
> >> No, see below.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Let's say those defaults change, and now the default output of `git show` is
> >> > `--stat`.
> >> >
> >> > Now to generate the same output you have to do:
> >> >
> >> > git show --raw
> >> >
> >> > in one version of git, and:
> >> >
> >> > git show --no-stat --patch --raw
> >> >
> >> > in another.
> >>
> >> No: --raw in my model clears all the flags but --raw, so
> >>
> >> git show --raw
> >>
> >> will produce exactly the same result: raw output only.
> >
> > But that {--,--+,---} notion doesn't exist, and I think it's safe to say it
> > will never exist. So, could we limit or solution-space to those solutions that
> > could have the potential to be merged?
>
> I didn't expect it to exist any time soon, just showed a different way
> of options design.
>
> >
> > What you suggest could be easily achieved with:
> >
> > git show --silent --raw
> >
> > But because no other format is explicitely specified, following my notion of
> > defaults, that's the same as:
>
> The problem that I tried to fight is this notion of defaults that is
> somewhat special, so, if I allow for it, the rest of my suggestions
> becomes pointless,
No, they don't, all you need to do is specify the default explicitely.
> and without the "defaults" with non-trivial behavior[*]
>
> git show --raw
>
> won't work as expected provided --raw still just sets "raw" bit and
> doesn't clear all the rest.
It works perfectly fine. There are no bits to clear, because there are no bits
set.
That's the whole point of defaults: you don't have to use them. If you don't
like the notion of defaults, then don't use them.
If you specify *any* format option, then the defaults are ignored and no bits
are set other than the ones that you explicitly specified.
> [*] Defaults with trivial behavior is just initializing of internal
> variable holding flags with specific value, that is exactly the same as
> putting corresponding option(s) at the beginning.
Those are not default arguments, those are initial arguments. In many cases
they behave the same, but not all.
--
Felipe Contreras
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-11 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-11 3:14 Can we clarify the purpose of `git diff -s`? Felipe Contreras
2023-05-11 11:59 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-11 16:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-11 17:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-11 18:04 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-11 18:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-11 18:36 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-11 18:17 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-11 17:41 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-11 18:31 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-11 19:10 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-11 19:32 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-11 19:54 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-11 20:24 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-11 20:59 ` Felipe Contreras [this message]
2023-05-11 22:49 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-11 23:28 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-12 8:40 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-12 19:19 ` Felipe Contreras
[not found] ` <5bb24e0208dd4a8ca5f6697d578f3ae0@SAMBXP02.univ-lyon1.fr>
2023-05-12 8:15 ` Matthieu Moy
2023-05-12 17:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 18:21 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-12 19:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 19:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 20:28 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-12 20:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 21:01 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-12 21:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 21:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 23:21 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-12 21:41 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-12 22:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 22:47 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-12 23:07 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-13 14:58 ` Philip Oakley
2023-05-13 17:45 ` Sergey Organov
2023-05-12 19:47 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-12 19:34 ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-12 19:17 ` Felipe Contreras
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=645d572a47e5b_57c4e294dc@chronos.notmuch \
--to=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr \
--cc=sorganov@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).