Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] nd/icase updates

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Makes sense. But then if opt->ignore_case is false and regflags
>>> happens to have REG_ICASE set, should we clear it as well?
>>
>> I think .ignore_case is set iff '-i' is given, and .regflags has
>> REG_ICASE only if '-i' is given and the user said she does not want
>> literal string match (i.e. no '-F').
>>
>> So... can .regflags have REG_ICASE when .ignore_case is false?
>
> Yeah reg_icase is more like a subset of ignore_case. Ignore what I wrote.

The rule of the game can be updated to make whoever looks at
.ignore_case currently instead look at .regflags & REG_ICASE; that
way, we could remove .ignore_case and stop worrying about one is
subset of the other.

It is just it felt funny to be mucking with .regflags when the user
explicitly said -F, and that is why they are separate.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]