Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Does the user really cares if it's a pseudo-ref or not? Also, what
> does it mean that "refers" to HEAD?
It's not about whether the user cares or not; it's about saying it in
a way that doesn't make it less precise. I'm saying "@ is like a
symbolic-ref .git/@ ref referring to HEAD, except it doesn't sit on
the filesystem".
It's not important that end users understand it fully. It's only
really useful in two cases: @~ and @^, and I've provided examples
there.
>> An '@' followed
>> + by '\{' has no relationship to this and means something entirely
>> + different (see below).
>
> If the user cares about that, the user can see that below, otherwise
> there's no point in mentioning that.
A user seeing @{} might vaguely recall @ and scroll-back here. In
which case, this is useful.
> Just like there's no point in
> mentioning that @{-N} means something totally different from @{N},
> because the user can see that. If it didn't mean something different,
> this bullet point wouldn't exist.
Those two are right next to each other.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
