On November 15, 2016 9:42:03 AM PST, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >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.
I prefer strip implemented with negative numbers. That is simple and expressive and if we need we can implement rstrip if necessary. > >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. It may be a bit strange indeed. What is the requirement for this? I think implementing a strip and rstrip ( if necessary ) with negative numbers would be most ideal. Thanks Jake
