Re: [PATCH] diff: add ruby funcname pattern

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 2, 2008, 11:39 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0808021336050.9611@pacific.mpi-cbg.de.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <cb7bb73a0808012306y5672dad9nd0a21f861f181e5b@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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 was just looking for a libxdiff issue tracker but I couldn't find one, 
> so I guess I'll ask the author directly about the possibility to 
> implement such a thing.

The funcname thing was introduced by us, in Git. I do not know if Davide picked the changes up; at least for the merge stuff he seemed to be pretty reluctant.

> The matchit plugin for vim seems to manage (even user-defined) code 
> blocks very well, even for multi-state blocks (if ... else ... end), 
> using regexps; so maybe a reimplementation in C for libxdiff could be a 
> solution.

Bzzt. You say vi manages it with regexps, and then you go on and say that you therefore do _not_ want to use a regexp?

BTW having funcname calculation in C was shot down by Junio as being too inflexible, as the user cannot add new languages without recompiling. That's why we have regexps now.

Ciao, Dscho