From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABE21F461 for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 09:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726537AbfEPJTV (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2019 05:19:21 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50878 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726336AbfEPJTV (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2019 05:19:21 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40D114FFE7; Thu, 16 May 2019 05:19:16 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=/oMsZUHtqtOLqiBI5pzWSDqF8B8=; b=FUDb7D DsaUE5kONGFsY1iLaMKqpIRdLHPGM0KSCDdwL0NasQ26pf3TFfgTAsV24R+dFMWz Y9NXLqpEg+3VaV1/Q7mB+TwQyaIhDyZKtm2c7K5V5ZLpjc7cG6qYzcqmhE/yA9wV O62yOmBxXKaB0qlrdBlwAxyWEuFV+xM4YaT8I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=I7g66alU9RVQHE1akv/Gbkg+m4fTobLE lLUoAPW6NoxSZUtYyP3lHmKySUF2uVIG/lFpko8itEDP4wZdzVNsA4TYQGyJ98cM D7jJgzHVGqpL5uahksBKMImclqE0SoIKnq7qqkPMMLcKu1iM2k/ztMPf8GMB70j0 C4mMq57imMg= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBFCE14FFE6; Thu, 16 May 2019 05:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.255.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F84C14FFE5; Thu, 16 May 2019 05:19:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Sixt Cc: "LI\, BO XUAN" , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , philipoakley@iee.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] userdiff.c & doc/gitattributes.txt: add Octave References: <20190511041331.51642-1-liboxuan@connect.hku.hk> Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 18:19:15 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Sixt's message of "Wed, 15 May 2019 19:46:18 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: AD7319D4-77BB-11E9-96C4-46F8B7964D18-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Sixt writes: > In Matlab, is %%% followed by space at the beginning of a line > *commonly* used for something different? If I were to make a guess, I > would say no. If I'm right, it does not hurt to merge the Octave rules > into the Matlab rules. That is true because we are not syntax-aware and error-highlighting text editor. If we were, I'd suspect that your stance may probably be different. But instead we apply these patterns to a program that is assumed to be correctly written. And from that point of view, I agree with you that it would not hurt to make the existing patterns for Matlab slightly more receptive so that a correctly written programs in either language would be matched appropriately. But would it hurt to have two similar entries, with a clear description on how they are different, in our code there, given how infrequently individual entries have historically been updated?