On Sunday 02 February 2020 at 08:45 pm +0100, Martin Ågren wrote: > Hi Adam, > > On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 20:24, Adam Dinwoodie <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Change the example arguments in the description of the -G diff argument > > to be consistent throughout the description. > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dinwoodie <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/diff-options.txt | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/diff-options.txt b/Documentation/diff-options.txt > > index 09faee3b44..84a74cb2da 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/diff-options.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/diff-options.txt > > @@ -561,19 +561,19 @@ Binary files are searched as well. > > -G<regex>:: > > Look for differences whose patch text contains added/removed > > lines that match <regex>. > > + > > To illustrate the difference between `-S<regex> --pickaxe-regex` and > > `-G<regex>`, consider a commit with the following diff in the same > > file: > > + > > ---- > > + return !regexec(regexp, two->ptr, 1, ®match, 0); > > ... > > - hit = !regexec(regexp, mf2.ptr, 1, ®match, 0); > > ---- > > + > > -While `git log -G"regexec\(regexp"` will show this commit, `git log > > --S"regexec\(regexp" --pickaxe-regex` will not (because the number of > > +While `git log -G<regex>` will show this commit, `git log > > +-S<regex> --pickaxe-regex` will not (because the number of > > occurrences of that string did not change). > > I don't think this is correct. "<regex>" is a placeholder and this > example wants to use a real-world regex instead of the placeholder. > Maybe this could be made clearer by having an example that does not try > to grep in regex-code using the regex "regexec\(regexp". > > Maybe instead of "regexec", "regexp" and "regmatch", this example could > use words from some other domain? Would something like this be clearer? > > To illustrate the difference between `-S<regex> --pickaxe-regex` and > `-G<regex>`, consider a commit with the following diff in the same > file: > + > ---- > + return !frotz(nitfol, two->ptr, 1, 0); > ... > - hit = !frotz(nitfol, mf2.ptr, 1, 0); > ---- > + > While `git log -G"frotz\(nitfol"` will show this commit, `git log > -S"frotz\(nitfol" --pickaxe-regex` will not (because the number of > occurrences of that string did not change). Ah, thank you! I had completely misread what these examples were trying to achieve. I think your example (or indeed anything from a different domain) would have avoided me getting confused in the first place. Although I'm much less fussed now I realise the problem here was entirely my understanding rather than an error in the docs. > BTW, I wonder what "in the same file" tries to say -- my hunch is we > could drop those words without any loss of correctness or readability. > Would you agree? I think "in the same file" is meaningful here: as I understand it both forms would find a commit that removed a line from one file and added it back to a _different_ file, but only the -G form would pick it when removed and added lines are in the same file. Adam
