On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 03:24:17PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > >> Offering a way to enable terminal-detection for all color codes of a >> format would be useful, but using the existing "auto," prefix for that >> would be a behaviour change that could surprise users.
I wonder if we made a mistake associating terminal-detection with %C(auto,...). The more likely use case is enable or disable all colors, not "the next tag". > Yeah. In retrospect, it probably would have been saner to make %C(red) a > noop when --color is not in effect (either because of --no-color, or > more likely when --color=auto is in effect and stdout is not a > terminal). But that ship has long since sailed, I think. > > If we do a revamp of the pretty-formats to bring them more in line with > ref-filter (e.g., something like "%(color:red)") maybe that would be an > opportunity to make minor adjustments. Though, hmm, it looks like > for-each-ref already knows "%(color:red)", and it's unconditional. > <sigh> So perhaps we would need to go through some deprecation period or > other transition. We could add some new tag to change the behavior of all following %C tags. Something like %C(tty) maybe (probably a bad name), then discourage the use if "%C(auto" for terminal detection? -- Duy
