Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> 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