On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:29:07 +0100 v4hn <m...@v4hn.de> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:24:25AM +0000, Dimitris > Papastamos wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 08:54:13PM +0100, Mattias > > Andrée wrote: > > > I'm thinking about introducing an extension to the > > > standard: -w. When this flag is used, patch will > > > verify that the patchfile only changes whitespace in > > > the file. > > > > > > 1) Do you think this should be a flag or a separate > > > tool? > > > > Sounds like it could be a flag. > > Sounds useless to me. What counts as whitespace change? > `if(x){ \n` -> `if(x){\n`, ok, > `\tif(x){\n` -> ` if(x){\n`, in python and haskell > probably not, `if(x){\n` -> `if(x) {\n`, seems simple > enough, `printf("%d",x);\n` -> `printf("% d",x);\n`, > that's no simple whitespace change, not to talk about the > infamous bumblebee patch `rm -rf /usr /share` -> `rm > -rf /usr/share` > > This does not belong into standard patch.
Perhaps it is best not to include it. But what about a flag that sends to old file and the new file to a tool that can test if the patch is acceptable? Then you can select a tool that can valdiate the patch for syntax, and it could be used for any type of test. > > > > 2) Should it be able to do a dry run, would be > > > another flag that can be used independently of -w? > > > > Yes it would be nice to support a dry run flag > > regardless of whether -w is specified or not. > > gnu patch supports --dry-run. It probably makes sense > to support this flag either way. > > > v4hn
pgpWq0d5U_IAY.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature