From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boaz Harrosh Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] attr: map builtin userdiff drivers to well-known extensions Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:01:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4E56C62F.1000403@panasas.com> References: <20110825200001.GA6165@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110825204047.GA9948@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110825210654.GA11077@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Sunshine , To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 26 00:01:40 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QwhzY-0005OI-1S for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:01:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755591Ab1HYWBe (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:01:34 -0400 Received: from natasha.panasas.com ([67.152.220.90]:48658 "EHLO natasha.panasas.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755436Ab1HYWBe (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:01:34 -0400 Received: from zenyatta.panasas.com (zenyatta.int.panasas.com [172.17.28.63]) by natasha.panasas.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p7PM1Qom003543; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:01:26 -0400 Received: from [172.17.132.75] (172.17.132.75) by zenyatta.int.panasas.com (172.17.28.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.289.1; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:01:20 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110707 Thunderbird/5.0 In-Reply-To: <20110825210654.GA11077@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 08/25/2011 02:06 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 05:00:51PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > >>> Also, any other extensions that would go into such a list? I have no >>> idea what the common extension is for something like pascal or csharp. >> >> C# uses extension ".cs". >> >> ".cpp" is common, in fact often required, by Windows compilers. > > Thanks, added both to my list. > >> What about ".h" and ".hpp"? > > How well do our cpp patterns do with header files? I imagine they're > better than the default, but I don't think I've ever really tried > anything tricky. > > -Peff Thanks Jeff, thanks everyone! This looks very promising. Specially that it's all already there and I don't have to code it up. RTFM time for me now Boaz