Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> writes: > dirname makes sense. What about implementing a reverse variant of > strip, which you could perform stripping of right-most components and > instead of stripping by a number, strip "to" a number, ie: keep the > left N most components, and then you could use something like > ... > I think that would be more general purpose than basename, and less confusing?
I think you are going in the right direction. I had a similar thought but built around a different axis. I.e. if strip=1 strips one from the left, perhaps we want to have rstrip=1 that strips one from the right, and also strip=-1 to mean strip everything except one from the left and so on?. I think this and your keep (and perhaps you'll have rkeep for completeness) have the same expressive power. I do not offhand have a preference one over the other. Somehow it sounds a bit strange to me to treat 'remotes' as the same class of token as 'heads' and 'tags' (I'd expect 'heads' and 'remotes/origin' would be at the same level in end-user's mind), but that is probably an unrelated tangent. The reason this series wants to introduce :base must be to emulate an existing feature, so that existing feature is a concrete counter-example that argues against my "it sounds a bit strange" reaction.
