Subject: Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?

From: Felipe Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 06:00:51 -0500

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > I mean, I see why. You don't want a typo of "master" as "maaster" to
> > create a new "maaster" branch, so really that's out. But it really
> > should be:
> >
> >     # -n or -N for --new / --new --force (the latter just in case of a
> >     # race, and just for consistency)
> >     git switch -n doesnotexist
> 
> I do not see why --new is better than --create;

I do. Different languages equal different minds.

New in this context is an adjetive: it is a modifier of a noun, in this
case, a branch.

Create is a verb; it's an action.

Linguistically speaking they could not be more different.

You don't do two verbs at a time. Either you sleep, or you eat, but you
don't do both. Similarly you don't switch and create. Doesn't make
sense.

If you use natural language:

  1. Git, switch to a new branch

  2. Git, switch, create, branch

One of these simply flows, the other is complete gibberish. I think
anyone familiar with English can identify which is which.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras