Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> How about making this an extra paragraph?
Sure, why not. Though I'm still in favour of taking some longer
version, possibly from my old series.
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Thomas Rast wrote:
> > +- `cpp` suitable for source code in the C and C++ languages.
> > +
>
> How about "written in C or C++"?
I was just trying to be consistent with all other items; all
programming languages are listed as "Foo language".
> > +A built-in pattern is provided for all languages listed in the last
> > +section.
>
> Wow. But how about "previous section"?
Indeed, thanks.
> > +#define PATTERNS(name, pattern, wordregex) \
> > + { name, NULL, -1, { pattern, REG_EXTENDED }, NULL, wordregex }
>
> You could get rid of that NULL if...
[...]
> ... you inserted word_regex before textconv. In a way, I find this more
> logical, since both funcname and word_regex have sensible defaults
> (provided by you), whereas textconv is strictly a user's option.
Ok, I'll do that.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
