On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 08:38:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > I think this patch would be a better match for what RFC2047 specifies.
> > On the one hand it avoids substituting _ outside of encodings, but OTOH
> > it also handles more than one encoded-word.
> Yeah, I think it is an improvement.
> I however wonder if the captured pattern for $2 should be minimized
> with ? at the end, i.e. "..\?q\?(.*?)\?="?

Yeah, definitely. "?=" cannot appear inside (it would need to be

> > It still does not handle
> > the case where there are several encoded-words of *different* encodings,
> > but who would do such a crazy thing?
> Even if somebody did so, it wouldn't have worked, and to make it
> work, the sub and its caller (there is only one caller that actually
> cares what the original encoding was) needs to be rethought anyway,
> so I do not think it matters.
> It may deserve an in-code NEEDSWORK comment, though.

I rambled about this in much more detail in another reply, but the gist
of it is that yes, that is the right step for now.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to