From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B689C2018A for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:54:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752004AbcGASy3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:54:29 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:64559 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751426AbcGASy1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:54:27 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C4627326; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:54:06 -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=BUoQgxQPVT6yOEPejT/HJir2hAY=; b=xnBdnV VdeZuOI8rIjCwXnWV83aX+We/zzbXkBLkQP7owXDivr8c1Ii3du4x1A1fmX9I06i lSsvNCid+GFE+R5qt5yhF2/9r91GNpK7nWdyI2hML6S+xkcctp1H4hYd3eKBBEuu qLTVbhPc0Zvqx3nA31xMB/J8b3ZZMYGNwal5Y= 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=IcwP5QOhgBimKwAmZNXFvAwVQI4lpzEm oPRcjlk2B7nQGOaxTeYhv+/t4tkDH5CbXbO88mDErHdFGL9eEh8doP4Ta3CXBiYG in/Zdc0hA+2mfgPkcua20ZeM3z3H6LhI4hnzLdotK4dz7IjW5O5OCApJ8BXS0VLw QHPSnlLyMRs= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26BF27325; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4422527324; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:54:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Duy Nguyen Cc: Git Mailing List , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] nd/icase updates References: <20160623162907.23295-1-pclouds@gmail.com> <20160625052238.13615-1-pclouds@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 11:54:04 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Duy Nguyen's message of "Fri, 1 Jul 2016 20:46:30 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2FB1F60C-3FBD-11E6-960A-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Duy Nguyen writes: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Duy Nguyen writes: >> >>> Makes sense. But then if opt->ignore_case is false and regflags >>> happens to have REG_ICASE set, should we clear it as well? >> >> I think .ignore_case is set iff '-i' is given, and .regflags has >> REG_ICASE only if '-i' is given and the user said she does not want >> literal string match (i.e. no '-F'). >> >> So... can .regflags have REG_ICASE when .ignore_case is false? > > Yeah reg_icase is more like a subset of ignore_case. Ignore what I wrote. The rule of the game can be updated to make whoever looks at .ignore_case currently instead look at .regflags & REG_ICASE; that way, we could remove .ignore_case and stop worrying about one is subset of the other. It is just it felt funny to be mucking with .regflags when the user explicitly said -F, and that is why they are separate.