On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey, > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Karthik Nayak <karthik....@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> ... >>>> 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? >>> ... >> >>> If we do implement strip with negative numbers, it definitely >>> would be neat, but to get the desired feature which I've mentioned >>> below, we'd need to call strip twice, i.e >>> to get remotes from /refs/foo/abc/xyz we'd need to do >>> strip=1,strip=-1, which could be >>> done but ... >> >> ... would be unnecessary if this is the only use case: >> >>> strbuf_addf(&fmt, >>> "%%(if:notequals=remotes)%%(refname:base)%%(then)%s%%(else)%s%%(end)", >>> local.buf, remote.buf); >> >> You can "strip to leave only 2 components" and compare the result >> with refs/remotes instead, no? >> > > Of course, my only objective was that someone would find it useful to > have these two additional > atoms. So if you think it's unnecessary we could drop it entirely :D > > -- > Regards, > Karthik Nayak
I think having strip and rstrip make sense, (along with support for negative numbers) I don't think we need to make them work together unless someone is interested, since we can use strip=-2 to get the behavior we need today. Thanks, Jake
