Andreas Ericsson <ae@xxxxxx> writes: > Can we issue a deprecation heads-up for the current "funcname" > along with a "call for patterns" and then have "funcname" and > "ereg_funcname" mean the same for a while until we obsolete > ereg_funcname in favour of funcname, perhaps? I can't imagine > anyone wanting to use posix regular expressions if extended > ones are available everywhere. I prefer not to obsolete anything, and that is one of the larger reasons that I did not object to xfuncname at all. It's shorter to spell than ereg_funcname (and sweeter to the eye). Even when in some future _everybody_ uses xfuncname and nobody you and I know personally uses funcname anymore, I do not think it is worth the hassle to change the semantics of "funcname". For one thing, "xfuncname" is _not_ that ugly that people would wish they could spell it just "funcname". This reminds me of what Eric did to "commit" vs "dcommit". "commit" was renamed to "set-tree", and a command with a better semantics is called "dcommit". Perhaps not many people use "set-tree" and everybody keeps typing "dcommit" these days, but it is not worth renaming it to "commit", ever. -- 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
