Johannes Schindelin, 29.10.2009:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Markus Heidelberg wrote:
>
> > Indeed my initial fix was in the same fashion:
> >
> > @@ -772,6 +772,15 @@ static void fn_out_consume(void *priv, char *line, unsigned long len)
> > }
> >
> > if (line[0] == '@') {
> > + if (ecbdata->diff_words) {
> > + /*
> > + * The content of the previous hunk, necessary for
> > + * 0-context.
> > + */
> > + if (ecbdata->diff_words->minus.text.size ||
> > + ecbdata->diff_words->plus.text.size)
> > + diff_words_show(ecbdata->diff_words);
> > + }
> > len = sane_truncate_line(ecbdata, line, len);
> > find_lno(line, ecbdata);
> > emit_line(ecbdata->file,
> >
> > But then I thought I should not put the diff output from --color-words
> > into the block that deals with the hunk header, but save another place
> > where diff_words_show() is called.
>
> I found this paragraph, as well as the patches 2/3 and 3/3, hard to
> follow.
I try to reword:
With 2/3 and 3/3 I wanted to keep --color-words specific code in the
block starting with
if (ecbdata->diff_words) {
and didn't want to contaminate the block starting with
if (line[0] == '@') {
with non-hunk-header content.
But I'm not sure what's the better way and am content with either.
> And besides, flushing in that block is the correct thing to do. The
> function diff_words_show() is a function for that exact purpose.
Yes, 2/3 and 3/3 just don't introduce a new invocation of this function
at another place in the code.
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html