Sorry, I dropped the ball on this.
I still think it would be good to get it done.
> On 11/22/24 02:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>> `--pickaxe-grep` for `-G` seems like a reasonable alternative name for `-G`.
> >> That is probably OK (even though "-G" is not exactly what the
> >> pickaxe machinery wants to do; "--grep-in-patch" might be closer to
> >> the intent).
> > Imagining, that I am starting from scratch for this functionality, I think I
> > would also consider "patch". Though, as we have 4 related argument names, I
> > wonder if using it as a prefix would create a more consistent UX.
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > "--patch-grep" for "-G"
> > "--patch-modifies" for "-S"
>
> Ahh, "modifies" is a great verb. It sounds quite logical, but "-S"
> does not have to generate a patch internally for it to work, so
> "--patch-modifies" is a bit of white lie.
Used "--patch-modifies" for the second version of the patch.
I think most people (certainly me) think about patches first, when they look at
these commands. They are unlikely to realize right away that generating a patch
is more expensive than counting the string/regex occurrences in the pre- and
post- images. So, if you consider the "it behaves as if" point of view rather
than "this is how it works" point of view, it is not even a lie :)
> > "--patch-search-show-all"/"--patch-show-all" for "--pickaxe-all"
> > "--patch-search-regex"/"--patch-regex" for "--pickaxe-regex"
>
> These already have their own established long names, so it is
> outside the scope of this topic, and I doubt it is worth giving
> these additional aliases (as you seem to agree).
I do not have a strong feeling on this one. If "-S" and/or "-G" would get names
that do not start with a "--pickaxe" it might be a bit confusing that the flags
that affect their behavior do have the "--pickaxe" prefix. If this is a valid
concern, I could probably create a separate patch to add alternative names.
---
I've updated the patch with the following names:
"--patch-grep" for "-G"
"--patch-modifies" for "-S"
On 11/19/24 10:58, Jeff King wrote:
> FWIW, I like --grep-in-patch. Saying just "--pickaxe-grep" does not
> highlight that it is about looking in the patch. I.e., it is not clear
> from the name that is different from "-Sfoo --pickaxe-regex".
Is "--patch-grep" a good alternative? I think, using the same prefix for a
functionality that looks quite similar from the user standpoint ("-G" and "-S")
seems nice. Using "--grep-in-patch" for "-G", "--patch-modifies" for "-S" and
"--pickaxe-regex"/"--pickaxe-all" all at the same time seems less consistent,
but I can change it if you insist.
Illia Bobyr (1):
diff: --patch{-modifies,grep} arg names for -S and -G
Documentation/diff-options.txt | 36 +++++------
Documentation/git-blame.txt | 2 +-
Documentation/gitdiffcore.txt | 48 ++++++++-------
diff.c | 18 +++---
diff.h | 11 +++-
gitk-git/gitk | 10 +++-
t/t4062-diff-pickaxe.sh | 8 +--
t/t4209-log-pickaxe.sh | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
8 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 88 deletions(-)
--
2.45.2
