From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] userdiff: allow * between cpp funcname words Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:19:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20111206201944.GB27930@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20111206190217.GD9492@sigill.intra.peff.net> <201112062117.57690.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 06 21:19:54 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RY1UW-00087T-IM for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:19:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753822Ab1LFUTr (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:19:47 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:41487 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753492Ab1LFUTq (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:19:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 7866 invoked by uid 107); 6 Dec 2011 20:26:24 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:26:24 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:19:44 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201112062117.57690.trast@student.ethz.ch> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:17:56PM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote: > > Looks reasonable to me. You can see the difference, for instance, with: > > > > git show -U1 3c73a1d > > > > (The -U1 is because of the annoying "we will start looking for the > > header at the top of context, not the top of changes" behavior I > > mentioned last week). > > Actually (sadly) I'll have to revise it. It doesn't match much of C++ > either, and I haven't yet come up with a reasonable regex that > matches, say, > > foo::Bar::t& Baz::operator<<( > > which I would call ludicrous, but it's valid C++. Ick, yeah. Maybe it is worth doing the "*" thing for now, and then worrying about advanced C++ stuff on top as another patch. AFAICT, your original patch is a strict improvement. -Peff