Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
[jc: redirecting the question to patch author---I am just a messenger]
>> diff --git a/userdiff.c b/userdiff.c
>> index 3f81a2261c..685fe712aa 100644
>> --- a/userdiff.c
>> +++ b/userdiff.c
>> @@ -191,6 +191,10 @@ PATTERNS("rust",
>> "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*"
>> "|[0-9][0-9_a-fA-Fiosuxz]*(\\.([0-9]*[eE][+-]?)?[0-9_fF]*)?"
>> "|[-+*\\/<>%&^|=!:]=|<<=?|>>=?|&&|\\|\\||->|=>|\\.{2}=|\\.{3}|::"),
>> +PATTERNS("scheme",
>> + "^[\t ]*(\\(define-?.*)$",
>
> The "define-?.*" can be simplified to just "define.*", but looking at
> the tests is that the intent? From the tests it looks like "define[- ]"
> is what the author wants, unless this is meant to also match
> "(definements".
>
> Has this been tested on some real-world scheme code? E.g. I have guile
> installed locally, and it has really large top-level eval-when
> blocks. These rules would jump over those to whatever the function above
> them is.
>
>> + /* whitespace separated tokens, but parentheses also can delimit words */
>> + "([^][)(\\}\\{ \t])+"),
>> PATTERNS("bibtex", "(@[a-zA-Z]{1,}[ \t]*\\{{0,1}[ \t]*[^ \t\"@',\\#}{~%]*).*$",
>> "[={}\"]|[^={}\" \t]+"),
>> PATTERNS("tex", "^(\\\\((sub)*section|chapter|part)\\*{0,1}\\{.*)$",
