On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Peter Samuelson <peter_at_p12n.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Peter Samuelson <peter_at_p12n.org> wrote:
>> > Hmmm, in tests/cmdline/log_tests.py XFail(log_chanage_range), I see
>> > Lieven thought -c might someday take ranges with ":" instead of "-".
>> > But since the output uses "-", I'd argue the cut-and-paste utility of
>> > sticking with that outweighs the consistency of ":". Unless perhaps we
>> > should support both, which would be trivial.
>> No objections to supporting both. Really all we are asking then is
>> that users remember that -c'X-Y' is inclusive of X and '-cX:Y' is
>> exclusive. Of course we may rapidly be approaching the point where -r
>> and -c both support ':' and '-' and effectively become the same
> Huh. I didn't interpret ":" to always imply an exclusive range. I
> figured -c vs. -r was the overriding factor here. In Lieven's XFail
> test, -c2:5 is inclusive, but that doesn't tell us much, it's a 'log'
> test and 'log' is always inclusive.
Yup, Julian busted me on that too. Just ignore me, it's Monday :-\
> So if we support '-c2-5', we can say that's always inclusive, but if
> we (also) support '-c2:5' there's the question of whether it means the
> same as '-c2-5' or the same as '-r2:5'.
> I'm not wedded to -c2:5 anyway, as my use case is pasting svn:mergeinfo
> onto the command line, but if we're gonna support it we should know
> what it's supposed to mean. (:
We can certainly proceed with what you have so far (i.e. -cX-Y
support) and if anybody wants to take up the -cX:Y banner, let them.
Received on 2010-10-04 22:08:45 CEST