[PATCH] revset: introduce the summary predicate

[Augie Fackler]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 03:34:13PM -0500, Matt Harbison wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 07:59:36 -0500, Pierre-Yves David
> <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
> > (ha, I wrote my previous reply in a train and it got sent when I
> > connected again (and received that one). I'm going to try to adress the
> > new content in this email and sometime repeat some of my other reply
> > content for clarity)
> >
> > On 01/08/2017 04:23 AM, Matt Harbison wrote:

[...]

> > I'm not 100% sure of what Yuya actually has in mind but here is my
> > understanding of the situation and how we could move forward.
> >
> > Currently:
> > ----------
> >
> >    desc(X) → X is customly matched as a case insensitive litteral,
> >
> >    We have a "generic" pattern definition syntax used by various other
> > reveset (implemented in "stringmatcher")
> >
> >      foo(X)
> >        → X is matched as a case sensitive litteral
> >      foo('literal:X')
> >        → X is matched as a case sensitive literal (same as the above)
> >      food('re:X')
> >        → X is matched as a regular expression (case sensitive)
> >
> > Proposal: (might be what yuya says)
> > ---------
> >
> > extend the string matcher to
> >
> >    foo('literal:X')
> >      → X is matched as a case sensitive literal
>
> See the comment in the new patch I sent about 'user()' already lowercasing
> 'literal:' and 're:'.  I'd consider it a bug, but it's been in since mid
> 2012.  Attempting to channel Matt, I'm guessing we are stuck with that since
> it is so old, but wanted to see what others think.

Guessing at motivations for user() lowercasing: most email hosts are
case-insensitive for the user part, even though rfc(2)822 doesn't
require it.

(Mostly stating this so that there's some trail of pondering if this
ever comes up in the future.)