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

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 9, 2007, 11:40 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707091236300.5546@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <7vd4z2xj34.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hi,

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> 
> > 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.

Not to mention that even the name "hunk_header_pattern_ident" would be a misnomer to begin with. It is the diff attribute we are storing there. Did you have any chance to look at

	http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/51828

yet?  That should clarify things, and

	http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/51829

on top of it should clarify things even more, besides making the code a little faster again.

Ciao, Dscho