Re: [PATCH/RFC] blame: accept multiple -L ranges
- From
Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
- Date
- Jul 22, 2013, 10:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87r4er2ct4.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cTh2t_Rc13U_F-prmm=sjs2OEHX5AX2DbC5DH+Tx_E5jg@mail.gmail.com>
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> The proposal currently is only for "-L /RE/,whatever" to behave in a > relative fashion, beginning the search at the end of the last range > specified via -L (or line 1 if there is no previous -L). > > Would it also make sense to support "-L +N,whatever" as relative to > the end of the last range specified via -L (or 1 if none).
Sounds reasonable.
I'm still not sure I am super-happy with /RE/ always being relative, though I see Junio's problem space as something worth solving. How does it interact with -L:RE? Do you now have to know in what order the functions appear in the source to correctly specify -L:foo -L:bar or similarly, -L/foo/,/^}/ -L/bar/,/^}/? What if we supported +/RE/ as the relative version?
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch