On 17-12-2012 8:33, Baruch Burstein wrote:
Another suggestion:
Since visual diffs are always for text files (I think), it doesn't make
much sense to mark partial words as changed. If the whole word is not
unchanged, then the whole word is changed. I am referring to things like
line 73817 on the left in the fourth link below.
Respectfully disagree.
The line you refer to works perfectly fine; I see no reason to reduce
granularity to word level, and every reason to keep it the way it works
now: if a word is partially changed, I like to see _what_ part was changed.
IMO, diff highlighting should highlight changes, not words. I can
recognize words by myself just fine; seeing what exactly changed is what
I need the highlighting for.
Also, in my case (at least), visual diffs are usually for text files
representing source code. In code, especially for a case-sensitive
language, a change to a single character can be crucial. Reducing
highlighting to only indicate changes per word makes it more difficult
to see this.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Richard Hipp <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Reposted from fossil-dev:
OLD: http://www2.sqlite.org/src/ci/52e755943f?sbs=1#chunk1
NEW: http://www.sqlite.org/src/ci/52e755943f?sbs=1#chunk1
OLD:
http://www2.fossil-scm.org/fossil/fdiff?v1=955cc67ace8fb622&v2=e2e1c87b86664b45#chunk24
NEW:
http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/fdiff?v1=955cc67ace8fb622&v2=e2e1c87b86664b45#chunk24
--
˙uʍop-ǝpısdn sı ɹoʇıuoɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎɟı
˙pɐǝɥ ʎɯ uo buıʇʇıs uǝɥʍ ǝuıɟ ʇsnظ uʍop ǝpısdn pɐǝɹ uɐɔ ı ¡ʎןןıs ǝq ʇ’uop
--
Martijn Coppoolse
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
