Am 16.12.2011 20:21, schrieb Jeff King: > 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'm saying the latter. Okay, we're talking "only" about hunk headers. But when you are reviewing patches, they are *extremely* useful and a time-saver; when they are wrong or not present, they are exactly the opposite. > So, I'm confused. If you are using this, surely you have "*.c diff=xcpp" > in your attributes file, and my patch has no effect for you, Sure I have. What I didn't say (sorry for that!), but wanted to hint at is that this is to experiment with a pattern in order to ultimately improve the built-in pattern. The topic came up just the other day, and I took Thomas Rast's suggestion to experiment with a simplified pattern: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/186355/focus=186439 But as is, the built-in pattern misses way too many anchor points in C++ code. -- Hannes -- 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