Re: [PATCH] Showing the relevant part of a diff

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: "Herring, Davis" <herring@lanl.gov>
> CC: "emacs-devel@gnu.org" <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 20:20:06 +0000
> 
> > > +(defun diff-goto-line (file line column)
> > > +  "Go to the place in this diff producing LINE in FILE.
> > 
> > This first line should mention COLUMN as well.
> 
> So, to keep to the length limit, I guess we want
> 
>   Go to the place in this diff producing LINE:COLUMN in FILE.

"LINE and COLUMN" sounds better.

> even though that (still) doesn't name the arguments in order.

That's not a catastrophe.

> > > +If LINE (in the new version of FILE) is included, move to it and then
> >                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Included where?
> 
> In the diff, as a +/! line or a context line.

That was a hint that the doc string should explain this.

> > > +COLUMN characters forward.  If it is absent, go to the first hunk
> > > +starting after LINE, or to the end if none does.
> > 
> > Why this fallback?  Would it make sense to just stay at the beginning?
> 
> First, it handles the case where point is just outside a hunk's context, by putting it "just off the edge" of the context.  It can also be useful to see the nearest changes before and after point even if they are far away: they might be additions/removals of "#ifdef...#endif", for example.

I think it's confusingly different from what you do when FILE is not
give.  IMO the beginning is better.

> > > +    (unless rev2    ; remember the position in the or a current buffer
> > 
> > Typo in the comment.
> 
> Not a typo -- I meant "in the [current buffer] or a current buffer".  I could write "in the, or a, current buffer", but now that I think of it we shouldn't call another existing buffer "a current buffer".  Maybe

Sorry, I don't understand: "_a_ current buffer"? why?