Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Here is why: in the _regular_ case, i.e. when we have a colored hunk > header like `@@ -936 +936 @@ wow()`, we manage to parse the line range, > and then record the offset of the extra part that starts afterwards. > > This extra part is non-empty, therefore we add an extra space. > > But that part already starts with a space, so now we end up with two > spaces. In other words, this breaks because the original code depended on having the extra whitespace before the "funcname" part. Stepping back a bit, if the final goal for the UI generation out of this string is to append the material with a whitespace before it for better visual separation, then the original should probably have (at least conceptually) lstrip'ed the leading whitespaces from the string it found after " @@" and then appended the result to where it is showing, with its own single whitespace as a prefix. It would have prevented this bug from happening by future-proofing, and made the final output nicer, as any excess whitespaces between the " @@" and "funcname" would have been turned into a single SP. The "prepend one iff it does not already begin with a whitespace" is a (at least mentally to the developer) less expensive approach that is fine, too. Thanks.
