Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> Well, the thing I tried to hint at: it is not good to have a monster
> patch, as nobody will review it.
>
> In your case, I imagine it would be much easier to get reviewers if you
> had
>
> patch 1/4 refactor color-words to allow for 0-character word
> boundaries
> patch 2/4 allow regular expressions to define what makes a word
> patch 3/4 add option to specify word boundary regexps via
> attributes
> patch 4/4 test word boundary regexps
>
> And I admit that I documented the code lousily, but that does not mean
> that you should repeat that mistake.
Sounds like a reasonable request. Also I am seeing:
diff.c: In function 'scan_word_boundaries':
diff.c:512: warning: enumeration value 'DIFF_WORD_UNDEF' not handled in switch
from this part of the code:
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
switch (buf->boundaries[i]) {
case DIFF_WORD_BODY:
*p++ = text[i];
break;
case DIFF_WORD_END:
*p++ = text[i];
*p++ = '\n'; /* insert an artificial newline */
break;
case DIFF_WORD_SPACE:
*p++ = '\n';
break;
case DIFF_WORD_SKIP:
/* nothing */
break;
}
}
--
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
