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! :) Stefan
