From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] userdiff: update Ada patterns Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:28:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20140205172844.GD7268@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <52EE234C.1060002@redneon.com> <20140202233531.GE16196@sigill.intra.peff.net> <52EF7E7C.3070504@redneon.com> <52F2160D.1040006@redneon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Adrian Johnson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 05 18:28:52 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WB6HL-0000P5-Bm for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:28:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753355AbaBER2r (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:28:47 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:45123 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753029AbaBER2q (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:28:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 6326 invoked by uid 102); 5 Feb 2014 17:28:46 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:28:46 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:28:44 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:17:47AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Adrian Johnson writes: > > >>> - "|[0-9][-+0-9#_.eE]" > >>> + "|[-+]?[0-9][0-9#_.aAbBcCdDeEfF]*([eE][+-]?[0-9_]+)?" > >> > >> This would match a lot wider than what I read you said you wanted to > >> match in your previous message. Does "-04##4_3_2Ee-9" count as a > >> number, for example, or can we just ignore such syntactically > >> incorrect sequence? > > > > Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of the word diff regexes. I > > thought the purpose of the word regex is to split lines into words, not > > determine what is syntactically correct. > > I agree that the purpose is former---So you could have just said > "the latter" ;-). > > Any other nitpick, anybody? Otherwise I'll queue this version. No nitpick here, I had the same thought as Adrian while reading the thread (and if somebody comes up with a real case where the output looks bad, we can iterate on it). -Peff