On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:41 PM, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Kevin Ballard <kevin@xxxxxx> wrote:
As a Ruby user, the regex for the funcname looks fine to me.
What is your opinion about the anonymous code blocks?
I've been thinking that another possibility could be to have two ruby
funcnames, a simpler one (the one I presented) that only has 'named'
blocks, and a more thorough one that also matches up anonymous blocks.
User could then choose which one to use in their code by having
gitattributes such as *.rb diff=ruby or *.rb diff=ruby-full (or
whatever else).
I'm not sure this would be a sensible policy though.
If you're going to get into anonymous code blocks, you're going to
have a really tough time deciding which blocks are interesting and
which aren't. And as you stated before, without a stack-based
approach, this could really fall apart, as anonymous blocks are
(almost) always going to be inside a method.
I think it's far simpler to stick with class/module/def.
-Kevin Ballard
--
Kevin Ballard
http://kevin.sb.org
kevin@xxxxxx
http://www.tildesoft.com
--
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
