Thanks for your patience. On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 16:32 -0700, Tupshin Harper wrote: > >Give me a case where assuming it's a replace will do the wrong thing, > >for C code, where it's a variable or function name.
> try this: > initial patch creates hello.c > #include <stdio.h> > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > printf("Hello world!\n"); > return 0; > } > > second patch: > replace ./hello.c [A-Za-z_0-9] world universe Aha! Okay, I now see at least part of issue: we're using different definitions of 'token.' Yours is quite sensible, in that it matches the darcs syntax. However, I'm claiming a token is defined by the file's language, and that a replace patch on anything but a token as per those language standards is a silly thing. In your example, I'd claim you did an inter-token edit, as the natural token there was "Hello world!\n". With that, let me restate what I think is possible. One should be able to discover renames (replaces) of user identifiers in C code programmatically. Is that everything darcs replace does? Obviously not. Is that what users would usually *want*? If I were using it, that's what I'd want (especially including the limited scope of replacement -- user identifiers such as variable or function names, etc.). But then I'm not a lurker on the darcs user list, so I don't know how usage of darcs replace plays out in actual practice. So, it's a subset. Is it a useful subset? Yes, as it addresses what happens during refactoring, which is when I'd usually see this getting used. (Syntactically ignorant search and replace is so, y'know, *1970s*.) Any clearer? Ray - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html