From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] userdiff: allow * between cpp funcname words Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:52:22 +0100 Message-ID: <4EDE8086.9080303@kdbg.org> References: <20111206190217.GD9492@sigill.intra.peff.net> <201112062117.57690.trast@student.ethz.ch> <20111206201944.GB27930@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Rast , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 06 21:52:36 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 1RY208-00084t-Er for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:52:32 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753443Ab1LFUw2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:52:28 -0500 Received: from bsmtp4.bon.at ([195.3.86.186]:17230 "EHLO bsmtp.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753382Ab1LFUw1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:52:27 -0500 Received: from dx.sixt.local (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE390130049; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 21:51:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.sixt.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1639919F5FB; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 21:52:23 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111101 SUSE/3.1.16 Thunderbird/3.1.16 In-Reply-To: <20111206201944.GB27930@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 06.12.2011 21:19, schrieb Jeff King: > 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. Excuse me, where's the problem? The above example shows this @@ -105,8 +105,8 @@ char *url_decode(const char *url) struct strbuf out = STRBUF_INIT; - const char *slash = strchr(url, '/'); + const char *colon = strchr(url, ':'); ... with current 4cb5d10b. This looks quite correct, no? -- Hannes