From: Johannes Schindelin Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:40:41 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per-path attribute based hunk header selection. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vd4z2xj34.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Hi, On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Pitre 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