Re: [PATCH] userdiff: add build-in pattern for shell
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Mar 29, 2017, 17:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqzig49e4j.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170329165331.17742-1-pickfire@riseup.net>
Ivan Tham <pickfire@riseup.net> writes:
Show 28 quoted lines
> Shell are widely used but comes with lots of different patterns. The
> build-in pattern aim for POSIX-compatible shells with some additions:
>
> - Notably ${g//re/s} and ${g#cut}
> - "function" from bash
>
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Tham <pickfire@riseup.net>
> ---
> Documentation/gitattributes.txt | 2 ++
> t/t4034-diff-words.sh | 1 +
> t/t4034/sh/expect | 14 ++++++++++++++
> t/t4034/sh/post | 7 +++++++
> t/t4034/sh/pre | 7 +++++++
> userdiff.c | 5 +++++
> 6 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 t/t4034/sh/expect
> create mode 100644 t/t4034/sh/post
> create mode 100644 t/t4034/sh/pre
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/gitattributes.txt b/Documentation/gitattributes.txt
> index a53d093ca..1bad72df2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gitattributes.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/gitattributes.txt
> @@ -706,6 +706,8 @@ patterns are available:
>
> - `ruby` suitable for source code in the Ruby language.
>
> +- `sh` suitable for source code in POSIX-compatible shells.The new test you added seems to show that this is not limited to POSIX shells but also understands bashisms like ${x//x/x}. Perhaps drop "POSIX-compatible" from here.
Show 10 quoted lines
> diff --git a/userdiff.c b/userdiff.c
> index 8b732e40b..8d5127fb6 100644
> --- a/userdiff.c
> +++ b/userdiff.c
> @@ -148,6 +148,11 @@ PATTERNS("csharp",
> "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*"
> "|[-+0-9.e]+[fFlL]?|0[xXbB]?[0-9a-fA-F]+[lL]?"
> "|[-+*/<>%&^|=!]=|--|\\+\\+|<<=?|>>=?|&&|\\|\\||::|->"),
> +PATTERNS("sh",
> + "^[ \t]*(function )?[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*[ \t]*()[\t]*\\{?$",There is something funky going on around parentheses on this line. The ones around "function " is meant to be syntactic metacharacters to produce a group in the regexp so that you can apply '?' (i.e. zero or one occurrence) to it. But I think the second pair of parentheses that appears later on the line, which enclose nothing, are meant to be literal? E.g. "hello (){\n\techo world;\n}\n" They would need some quoting, perhaps like
...[ \t]*\\(\\)[\t]*....
> + /* -- */ > + "(\\$|--?)?([a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9._]*|[0-9]+|#)|--" /* command/param */
TBH, I have no idea what this line-noise is doing.
$foobar, $4, --foobar, foobar, 123 and -- can be seen easily out of these patterns. I am not sure what --# would be (perhaps you meant to only catch $# and --# is included by accident, in which case it is understandable). It feels a bit strange to see that $# is supported but not $?; --foo but not --foo=bar; foobar but not "foo bar" inside a dq-pair.
> + "|\\$[({]|[)}]|[-+*/=!]=?|[\\]&%#/|]{1,2}|[<>]{1,3}|[ \t]#.*"),And this one is even more dense.