Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I'm not clear from what you wrote on whether you were saying it is > simply sub-optimal, or whether on balance it is way worse than the > default funcname matching. I think we recently saw that the optional built-in one for C did not even understand a function that returns a pointer, and nobody complained about it for a long time, and what was even more funny was that a patch to fix it got a comment from somebody who wasn't using the optional built-in one saying "The default works fine; what problem are you fixing?". That is clearly one example where the default one is still better than the pattern based one, iow, the pattern based one is way premature to be turned on by default. > And if it is bad on balance, is the right solution to avoid exposing > people to it, or is it to make our patterns better? Can't we do both, by avoid exposing normal users to broken one while people who want to improve the pattern based one work on unbreak it? > I.e., is it fixable, > or is it simply too hard a problem to get right in the general case, and > we shouldn't turn it on by default? I do not think that is the "either-or" question. My impression has been that even if it is fixable, it is too broken and produces worse result than the simple default in its current form. -- 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