On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:38:33AM +1000, Mark Jamsek wrote:
> You've given me something to think about. At present, the best I can
> come up with is that stash is a convenient, quick context-switch for
> small tasks. 'got stash' and 'got stash pop' is pretty convenient. But,
> you're right, there is a workaround; however, till I try it, I don't
> know that it would be as quick and simple. Whether that convenience is
> worth the code cost is another question.

If we were to implement a stash feature, it would be reasonable to
build the implementation as syntactic sugar on top of the features
we already have. I believe all the building blocks are already there.

The next trade-off would then be if this should be a wrapper script,
(fewer lines of code, won't add any maintenance cost to the C code base),
or a new command in got.c (more lines of code, adds maintenance cost).

If the scripted approach turns out to be really simple in practice,
perhaps we could even just add a section to the EXAMPLES section of
the man page which explains how the concept of stashing changes can
be made to work with the existing commands. This might be best in
order to help people improve their skillset in using the tool most
effectively. Adding too much abstractions and syntactic sugar could
end up obfuscating the basics.