[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] v7 #3460

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:28:59 +0100

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 07:18:15PM +0100, Daniel Näslund wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 06:29:41PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > We could rename it to emit_hunk(), flush_hunk(), hunk_done(), or something
> > similar, signifying that the function is responsible for dealing with
> > a hunk which has been processed.
> >
> > The function itself can figure out what to do with the hunk, based on
> > information in the hunk_info_t, rather than having the caller figure it out.
> Fixed, but with doubts. Passing only hi instead of (hi, n, fuzz) was
> fine but only passing target made it harder to understand why the caller
> calls copy_hunk(). But I've done it so I couldn't have been totally
> against it.

Yes, copy_hunk() is a bad name now that this function does so much
mroe than just copying. Hence my suggestion to rename the function
to something more general.

But that's a trivial change I can make, too. You don't need to post
another revision of this diff. I think it is very good now, thanks! :)

Received on 2010-01-28 19:29:37 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.