From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E0E1F461 for ; Sat, 18 May 2019 06:42:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726262AbfERGm4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 May 2019 02:42:56 -0400 Received: from bsmtp7.bon.at ([213.33.87.19]:37961 "EHLO bsmtp7.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725268AbfERGm4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 May 2019 02:42:56 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp7.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 455bFT67x6z5tlD; Sat, 18 May 2019 08:42:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597FF20BA; Sat, 18 May 2019 08:42:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] make slash-rules more readable To: "Dr. Adam Nielsen" References: <20190507104507.18735-1-admin@in-ici.net> <094f3746-67c9-0284-0593-eb6b24d5c4a3@in-ici.net> <469c37d9-4491-9072-211f-d9d8614413e0@in-ici.net> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 08:42:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <469c37d9-4491-9072-211f-d9d8614413e0@in-ici.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 17.05.19 um 23:43 schrieb Dr. Adam Nielsen: >> Another thing that I noticed is that its not mentioned anywhere that >> the pattern use a slash as a directory separator (instead of a >> backslash), its only clear from the examples. Maybe its worth to >> mention it in the "PATTERN FORMAT" section. Also its maybe worth to >> introduce the term "leading slash" and "trailing slash" because they >> will be of importance of the following paragraphs. Something like this >> after the paragraph of "!": >> >>      [...] for example, "\!important!.txt". >> >>      A slash `/` is used as a directory separator. >>      A leading slash (that is if the pattern begins with a slash) >>      or a trailing slash (that is if the pattern ends with a slash) >>      have special meaning and are explained below. >> >>      If the pattern contains a trailing slash, it would only find >>      a match with a directory. [...] >> > > > I changed my mind about this last addition. I think it is not very > readable and there is no need to explain leading/trailing slash. Maybe > one could just note it like this: > >       [...] for example, "\!important!.txt". > >       A slash `/` is used as a directory separator. >       A leading and trailing slash have special meaning >       and are explained in the following. > >       If the pattern ends with a slash, it would only find >       a match with a directory. [...] > > then I would also add: > >      If the pattern does not end with a slash, it would find a match >      with a file or directory. > > > Two notes about two sentences that I proposed a while ago: > >> + - If the pattern contains no slash "`/`" (except an optional > trailing slash), >> +   the ... > > I think that this sentence is not very readable. The exceptional case in > the brackets makes it over complicated. > >> + - A pattern that contains a non-trailing slash is matched > > And I don't like this phrase either. I think its too easy to confuse it > with "A pattern that contains no trailing slash". > > So I would suggest to replace both with the following: > >     If the pattern contains no slash or only a trailing slash, [...]. >     Otherwise (when it contains a non-trailing slash) the pattern >     is matched [...]. With all those new "if"s, "but"s, "otherwise"s, "when"s, and "except"s, I have a feeling that the current way to say If .... ends with a slash, then ... only directories... The trailing slash is removed for the purpose of the remaining rules. is still the best way to go forward. I do understand that this is a rather technical way to explain things than a colloquial one, but it also does remove a lot of conditionals and, therefore, mental burden. -- Hannes