Re: [RFC/PATCH] diff: simplify cpp funcname regex

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 07:56:46AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> 
>> Consider this code:
>>
>>   void above()
>>   {}
>>   static int Y;
>>   static int A;
>>   int bar()
>>   {
>>     return X;
>>   }
>>   void below()
>>   {}
> 
> Thanks, this example is very helpful.
> 
>> When you 'git grep --function-context X', then you get this output with
>> the current pattern, you proposal, and my proposal (file name etc omitted
>> for brevity):
>>
>>   int bar()
>>   {
>>     return X;
>>   }
> 
> Right, that makes sense to me.
> 
>> When you 'git grep --function-context Y', what do you want to see? With
>> the current pattern, and with your pattern that forbids semicolon we get:
>>
>>   void above()
>>   {}
>>   static int Y;
>>   static int A;
>>
>> and with my simple pattern, which allows semicolon, we get merely
>>
>>   static int Y;
>>
>> because the line itself is a hunk header (and we do not look back any
>> further) and the next line is as well. That is not exactly "function
>> context", and that is what I'm a bit worried about.
> 
> Hmm. To be honest, I do not see yours as all that bad. Is "above()" or
> "A" actually interesting here? I'm not sure that they are. But then I do
> not use --function-context myself.
> 
> I guess it violates the "show things that are vaguely nearby, rather
> than a container" view of context that we discussed earlier. But somehow
> that seems less important to me with "--function-context".
> 
> So I dunno. I kind of like your version.