Re: [PATCH 4/4] diff.c: convert builtin funcname patterns to extended regular expressions

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:

> Can we issue a deprecation heads-up for the current "funcname"
> along with a "call for patterns" and then have "funcname" and
> "ereg_funcname" mean the same for a while until we obsolete
> ereg_funcname in favour of funcname, perhaps? I can't imagine
> anyone wanting to use posix regular expressions if extended
> ones are available everywhere.

I prefer not to obsolete anything, and that is one of the larger reasons
that I did not object to xfuncname at all.  It's shorter to spell than
ereg_funcname (and sweeter to the eye).

Even when in some future _everybody_ uses xfuncname and nobody you and I
know personally uses funcname anymore, I do not think it is worth the
hassle to change the semantics of "funcname".

For one thing, "xfuncname" is _not_ that ugly that people would wish they
could spell it just "funcname".

This reminds me of what Eric did to "commit" vs "dcommit".  "commit" was
renamed to "set-tree", and a command with a better semantics is called
"dcommit".  Perhaps not many people use "set-tree" and everybody keeps
typing "dcommit" these days, but it is not worth renaming it to "commit",
ever.