On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:19 AM Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > > The form `<RUNTIME_PREFIX>/abc/def` would not be confused with anything > > that it is not, I would think. The only thing against this form (at least > > that I can think of) is that some people use this way to talk about paths > > that vary between different setups, with the implicit assumption that the > > reader will "interpolate" this *before* applying. So for example, when I > > tell a user to please edit their <GIT_DIR>/config, I implicitly assume > > that they know to not type out, literally, <GIT_DIR> but instead fill in > > the correct path. > > So yeah, some alternative syntax that is verbose but distinct makes > sense to me. We use %-substitution elsewhere. Could we do something with > that? "%RUNTIME_PREFIX%" gives me too many flashbacks, but something > like "%(RUNTIME_PREFIX)" matches our formatting language.
FWIW I don't have any preference, as long as the variable can still have a name (that is not a symbol). A side question regardless of syntax. What do we do with %(unrecognized name)/foo? I see three options - expand to empty, so "/foo" - keep it and try the literal path "%(unrecognized name)/foo" - somehow tell the caller that the path is invalid and treat it like non-existing path, even if there is some real thing at "%(unrecognized name)/foo" The last option is more predictable. But we need to be more careful about the syntax because if "%(some path like this)" actually exists somewhere, then it will be broken. And I think it's also more work. -- Duy
