Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> + "^[ \t]*([a-zA-z][a-zA-Z0-9_.]*[ \t]*<-[ \t]*function.*)$", > > I wonder how useful this is in practice. Unlike C or Java for example, > code can live outside of functions in R scripts. If you have a script > without any functions, there would not be any hunk headers. If you have > a script with a mix of functions and code outside of functions, the code > after a function would be attributed to the function. I'm not saying > that this is bad, but just asking if this is part of the plan. Isn't it the same as shell, perl, python, e-lisp and perhaps others? If we can reliably detect that we are outside of any function and set it to an empty string that would be great ;-). >> + /* -- */ >> + "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_.]*"), > > This singles out identifiers. Every single other characters would be its > own word. I'd consider this a disimprovement. If you are not prepared to > provide worddiff patterns, I recommend to use "[^ \t]+", which roughly > amounts to the default behavior. It can be improved incrementally in > later patches. Good point. > Please squash the test cases into this patch. Don't forget to test an > indented function, and while at it, test a function definition *nested* > in a function definition: that documents what the expected outcome is. Again, good point. Thanks.
