On 08/25/2011 01:27 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I mean. The label "try_again" is not at all unique in my file. As a >> reader I would like to see where is that code going to. The function >> name is a unique file identifier that tells me exactly where the change >> is going. The label is not. (It's not freaking BASIC) >> >> I bet all this was just inherited from diff. Would it be accepted if >> I send a patch to fix it? What you guys think a goto label makes any >> sense at all? > > The default tries to mimic what GNU used to do when we added the feature. > > The diff.*.xfuncname configuration variable is there exactly for people > like you to tweak what we use for hunk headers. Please experiment with it > and if you come up with a better set of patterns, people may want to copy > it and use it themselves. we may even consider updating the built-in > default with your patterns, once they got adopted by wider audiences. > Thanks, I'll investigate it sounds very interesting. > Personally, I would have to say that the source wouldn't be using too many > labels with the same name for this behaviour to be problematic, especially > if it is not freaking BASIC ;-), so... The Linux Kernel is full of "goto out" or "goto err" its a common error handling practice. I actually like it because it taps onto a known pattern. Now the patch tell me @@@ lable out: !! that's not very useful I would say Thanks I'm sure I can shape it up the way I like it Boaz -- 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