From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94C983FD4 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:38:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711489128; cv=none; b=D2+UAVtBgaVIAkS3BMHumIhoxBI/2JvLkdXXMibDzpQMNn7gaQyvd+N3HVelKo0dol8IpWLNUpyfrf9A4g3hu813M1hXLm3Gvsoyxm1y6JwNELICdQ+9reeMGSlQcJh/72cHsGbgTOit/nOsJ/9+Q0L8ZM+anE15z42uI2O4us8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711489128; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PaJl18sMcalSTmUW5YCxMTGJUneNvodaqCvLm6l4oE4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=G27WBbaws+0oJxGKKZ4St4ddlGudP8XLb2lam4Esaz/RZ4qruEjEkgtDmlzCqnzGT33EUCI3xFwnl2o3f3NzJdtltZAVDc3/kZLuDmEWuQ+BRdGuDn9mKvt01oUo3UoYuCdNhOTwrZKKSqvfF9MRaJOwaFN4Z7erAd1vU5NqyGY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=ZanWTDtQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="ZanWTDtQ" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29AE530260; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:38:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=PaJl18sMcalS TmUW5YCxMTGJUneNvodaqCvLm6l4oE4=; b=ZanWTDtQeQeYB0OExBSY86dhLtHz EB4b7VYuGfct7in/yyBGsp6Prb3cWUw2l+6vjGE6H5RLfrWTCypMpfhLI89PyMju RFOTStwDIU8iKUOA9tUnB6YjxPJ3nbl7Syp2pNjTlgoFLUklyBeailnPQeH41LSb ebe/cJFYhAVdcag= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2157E3025F; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:38:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5C403025B; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:38:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: git@vger.kernel.org Cc: "Steven Jeuris via GitGitGadget" , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Jeff King , Steven Jeuris , Steven Jeuris Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] userdiff: better method/property matching for C# In-Reply-To: (Steven Jeuris via GitGitGadget's message of "Wed, 06 Mar 2024 20:21:33 +0000") References: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:38:41 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 377EE966-EBB9-11EE-B707-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Steven Jeuris via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Steven Jeuris > > - Support multi-line methods by not requiring closing parenthesis. > - Support multiple generics (comma was missing before). > - Add missing `foreach`, `lock` and `fixed` keywords to skip over. > - Remove `instanceof` keyword, which isn't C#. > - Also detect non-method keywords not positioned at the start of a line= . > - Added tests; none existed before. > > The overall strategy is to focus more on what isn't expected for > method/property definitions, instead of what is, but is fully optional. > > Signed-off-by: Steven Jeuris > --- > userdiff: better method/property matching for C# > =20 > Change since v1: I removed "from" from the list of keywords to skip= . > First, I considered adding "await", but I discovered both "await" a= nd > "from" are "contextual keywords", which unlike the other keywords > currently listed, aren't reserved, and can thus cause false negativ= es. > I.e., it is valid to have a method named "await" or "from". In edge > cases, this may lead to false positives, but a different exclusion = rule > will need to be added to handle these. It seems that this has seen no reviews. I somehow find it doubtful that =C3=86var or Peff would be writing too much C# to be familiar with the language to judge the quality of the patch, but can somebody with C# background (I hear that its most common use is for developing Windows applications etc. there) chip in? Thanks.