Re: [PATCH] diff: add ruby funcname pattern
- From
Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org>
- Date
- Aug 2, 2008, 05:47 UTC
- Message-ID
- <C871A30D-F2AF-4385-ABD4-C57F474D7F01@sb.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <cb7bb73a0808012241s80a06fq1ac54a3350169f6c@mail.gmail.com>
On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:41 PM, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org> wrote: >> >> As a Ruby user, the regex for the funcname looks fine to me. > > What is your opinion about the anonymous code blocks? > > I've been thinking that another possibility could be to have two ruby > funcnames, a simpler one (the one I presented) that only has 'named' > blocks, and a more thorough one that also matches up anonymous blocks. > User could then choose which one to use in their code by having > gitattributes such as *.rb diff=ruby or *.rb diff=ruby-full (or > whatever else). > > I'm not sure this would be a sensible policy though.
If you're going to get into anonymous code blocks, you're going to have a really tough time deciding which blocks are interesting and which aren't. And as you stated before, without a stack-based approach, this could really fall apart, as anonymous blocks are (almost) always going to be inside a method.
I think it's far simpler to stick with class/module/def.
-Kevin Ballard
-- Kevin Ballard http://kevin.sb.org kevin@sb.org http://www.tildesoft.com