Re: [PATCH 6/7] diff.c: decouple white space treatment from move detection algorithm

[Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>]

Hi Jonathan,

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:03:29 -0700
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>
>> As we change the default, we'll adjust the tests.
>
> This statement is probably better written as:
>
>   In some existing tests, options like --ignore-space-at-eol were used
>   to control the color of the output. They have been updated to use
>   options like --color-moved-ignore-space-at-eol instead.

I'll adjust that statement; thanks for helping me out with good commit
messages (even the "As we change the defaults, .." was proposed by
you in a previous round)

>
>> +     unsigned flags = diffopt->color_moved_ws_handling
>> +                      & XDF_WHITESPACE_FLAGS;
>
> No need for "& XDF_WHITESPACE_FLAGS".

This is in anticipation of the next commit, when
color_moved_ws_handling takes more flags.
I can move that over to the last commit.

>
>> +     unsigned flags = o->color_moved_ws_handling & XDF_WHITESPACE_FLAGS;
>
> Same here.

Maybe I'll just state in the commit message why we keep the masking
here.

>
>> @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ struct diff_options {
>>       } color_moved;
>>       #define COLOR_MOVED_DEFAULT COLOR_MOVED_ZEBRA
>>       #define COLOR_MOVED_MIN_ALNUM_COUNT 20
>> +     int color_moved_ws_handling;
>>  };
>
> Should the "int" be "unsigned"?

yes.

> I noticed that the flag-like xdl_opts is
> signed, but I think it's better for flags to be unsigned.

I can change those, too.

> Also, document
> what this stores.

ok, will document.

> (And also, I would limit the bits.)

Not sure I follow. you want to make it e.g.

  unsigned color_moved_ws_handling : 6;

?

Oh, that would actually work, as XDF_WHITESPACE_FLAGS
are in second to fifth bits.

But then we need to document why the XDF_WHITESPACE
need to be at these low positions.

>> +     q_to_tab <<-\EOF >text.txt &&
>> +             Qa long line to exceed per-line minimum
>> +             Qanother long line to exceed per-line minimum
>> +             new file

>
> I know I suggested "per-line minimum", but I don't think there is one -
> I think we only have a per-block minimum. Maybe delete "per-line" in
> each of the lines.

yeah, I guess this heuristic could also make for another setting, though
as of now I did not desire any other heuristic than you originally came up
with. Will reword the text. Thanks!

Thanks,
Stefan