Option 3. seems the most reasonable to me.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 07:49, Scott L. Burson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am using Git to manage a CL project I am working on, and have noticed
> that there is no predefined regular expression to pull out "hunk headers".
> If you look at 'git diff' output, each hunk (sequence of consecutive lines
> with differences noted) has a header line, which is intended to show the
> first line of the top-level syntactic object (function definition, class
> declaration, etc.) that contains the hunk, so you can quickly see what
> function, class, etc. it is within. To find the appropriate header line
> for each hunk, Git scans backwards from the top of the hunk with a regular
> expression, and takes the first line that matches. The regex to use, of
> course, depends on the language of the source file.
>
> Git has a table of built-in regexes for a number of languages, including
> Scheme, but there is neither a generic Lisp entry nor a more specific CL
> entry. I am inclined to submit one for inclusion, but I wanted to bounce
> it off you folks first.
>
> Here is the current Scheme regex. This is in POSIX Extended ("ERE")
> syntax:
>
> ^[\t
> ]*(\\(((define|def(struct|syntax|class|method|rules|record|proto|alias)?)[-*/
> \t]|(library|module|struct|class)[*+ \t]).*)$
>
> This is unfortunately not general enough to work for CL, as it doesn't
> pick up 'defun', though it does allow some other CL constructs.
>
> So I started to think about what would be good for CL. Some possibilities:
>
> 1. Simply match any line that starts with an open paren in column 0.
> The upside of this simple rule is that it allows for arbitrary top-level
> construct names. But if you indent your defuns for some reason, it will
> overlook them.
> 2. Match any line that starts with '(def', even if indented. This
> could have false positives.
> 3. Match either (1) or (2).
>
> I'm leaning toward (3), but would like to hear your thoughts. Certainly,
> we could use a more specific regex that matches only predefined CL
> top-level constructs, but this seems wrong to me considering that CL
> encourages us to define macros to add such constructs when we see a need.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
