Hi folks, I've just pushed most of these patches, with signoffs, to a branch called "scrutiny-message-formatting", and I think we should merge it.
I actually reviewed all of these some time ago, and while there are still some changes and additions I'd like to include, I haven't had time to continue working on it for several months and don't want to block all this good work (and it is good work!) from going in. I have made some small changes to the patches, mostly cosmetic changes to message wording, indentation, parameter names and the like. I also added two small commits and simplified the commit messages to a degree that made sense to me. I've also omitted two of the patches where I think we should use a different approach: * Patch 0012 - I don't think the name provides much benefit, and in any case the way it was printed (with parens) was visually confusing. Better to use "; <name>" or the like, later. * Patch 0017 - I think the effect of this patch is important, but I still feel that mapping back to the user-specified names is better than regex-based number stripping, to avoid munging tvs that really do include a number. Anyway, the best way to understand the effect of this patch set is probably not to go through each patch individually (I've already done that, so you don't have to!) but rather to have a look at the "expected" files for the scrutiny tests to see what the resulting output looks like. Compare them to what we have currently and I think you'll see a nice improvement. Cheers, Evan _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers