Re: [RFC/PATCH] diff: simplify cpp funcname regex

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 07:56:46AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:

> Consider this code:
> 
>   void above()
>   {}
>   static int Y;
>   static int A;
>   int bar()
>   {
>     return X;
>   }
>   void below()
>   {}

Thanks, this example is very helpful.

> When you 'git grep --function-context X', then you get this output with
> the current pattern, you proposal, and my proposal (file name etc omitted
> for brevity):
> 
>   int bar()
>   {
>     return X;
>   }

Right, that makes sense to me.

> When you 'git grep --function-context Y', what do you want to see? With
> the current pattern, and with your pattern that forbids semicolon we get:
> 
>   void above()
>   {}
>   static int Y;
>   static int A;
> 
> and with my simple pattern, which allows semicolon, we get merely
> 
>   static int Y;
> 
> because the line itself is a hunk header (and we do not look back any
> further) and the next line is as well. That is not exactly "function
> context", and that is what I'm a bit worried about.

Hmm. To be honest, I do not see yours as all that bad. Is "above()" or
"A" actually interesting here? I'm not sure that they are. But then I do
not use --function-context myself.

I guess it violates the "show things that are vaguely nearby, rather
than a container" view of context that we discussed earlier. But somehow
that seems less important to me with "--function-context".

So I dunno. I kind of like your version.

-Peff