Re: [PATCH] diff: add ruby funcname pattern
- From
Lee Marlow <lee.marlow@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 2, 2008, 15:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7968d7490808020837m57a7c48fjf40c0a715f7f39ce@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <C871A30D-F2AF-4385-ABD4-C57F474D7F01@sb.org>
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:41 PM, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org> wrote: > > I think it's far simpler to stick with class/module/def. >
I agree with Kevin.
It's simpler and I'm not sure what value it would bring to show anonymous code blocks. The funcname is just to provide some additional context around the diff hunk, so you know where you are. What would be shown for an anonymous code block or proc in the diff? The module/class/method seems to provide the most useful context.
-Lee