> Hence my question, why are you doing something different, why not just put > the original back since its in upstream? > >Isn't the purpose of this whole exercise to sync with upstream?
It is, but I'm not sure upstream itself shouldn't be changed. The most important reason why this is a problem is that with this behavior the parser output is semantically different from other parsers -- not to mention that it's then harder to distinguish children of identically-named sections. But yeah, the PR here is just one solution, and we can and probably should use upstream's, changed or not. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/2019#issuecomment-448207766
