This involves a little hack to insert a lambda parameter 'x' to be used at
keyword position. If the template language were dynamically typed (and were
interpreted), .map() implementation would be simpler. I considered that, but
interpreter version has its own warts (late error reporting, uneasy to cache
static object, etc.), and I don't think the current template engine is
complex enough to rewrite from scratch.
.map() returns template, which can't be join()-ed. This will be fixed later.
The parameter order follows indent()/label() functions, but this might be
a bad idea because fill() is more likely to have optional parameters. We can
instead add template.fill(width) method as well as .indent(prefix). If we take
this approach, we'll probably need to add string.fill()/indent() methods,
and/or implicit cast at method resolution. The good thing about the method
syntax is that we can add string.refill(), etc. for free, without inventing
generic labeled template functions.
For #1043, I think it's better to add a config like ui.log-word-wrap = true.
We could add term_width/graph_width keywords to the templater, but the
implementation would be more complicated, and is difficult to use for the
basic use case. Unlike Mercurial, our templater doesn't have a context map
to override the graph_width stub.
A list type isn't so useful without a map operation, but List<CommitId>
is at least printable. Maybe we can experiment with it to craft a map
operation.
If a map operation is introduced, this keyword might be replaced with
"parents.map(|commit| commit.commit_id)", where parents is of List<Commit>
type, and the .map() method will probably return List<Template>.
The argument order is different from Mercurial's indent() function. I think
indent(prefix, content) is more readable for lengthy content. However,
indent(content, prefix, ...) might be better if we want to add an optional
firstline_prefix argument.
