Re: [PATCH] Per-path attribute based hunk header selection.

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 9, 2007, 05:05 UTC
Message-ID: <7vd4z2xj34.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707082320480.26459@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> About the comment from Johannes regarding hunk_header vs
>> funcname, I would actually prefer hunk_header, since that is
>> what this is about ("funcname" and "find_func" were misnomer
>> from the beginning), but I'd rename hunk_header to funcname for
>> the sake of consistency and minimizing the diff.
>
> I think "minimizing the diff" in this case is a bad reason.  Using 
> hunk_header is so much better than funcname IMHO.

Well, even then it turns out to be a good reason, as the patch to rename function and field can be a separate patch. After adding that "latex pattern" stuff, I am even more inclined to rename them.