On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 03:34:13PM -0500, Matt Harbison wrote: > On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 07:59:36 -0500, Pierre-Yves David > <pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote: > > > (ha, I wrote my previous reply in a train and it got sent when I > > connected again (and received that one). I'm going to try to adress the > > new content in this email and sometime repeat some of my other reply > > content for clarity) > > > > On 01/08/2017 04:23 AM, Matt Harbison wrote:
[...] > > I'm not 100% sure of what Yuya actually has in mind but here is my > > understanding of the situation and how we could move forward. > > > > Currently: > > ---------- > > > > desc(X) → X is customly matched as a case insensitive litteral, > > > > We have a "generic" pattern definition syntax used by various other > > reveset (implemented in "stringmatcher") > > > > foo(X) > > → X is matched as a case sensitive litteral > > foo('literal:X') > > → X is matched as a case sensitive literal (same as the above) > > food('re:X') > > → X is matched as a regular expression (case sensitive) > > > > Proposal: (might be what yuya says) > > --------- > > > > extend the string matcher to > > > > foo('literal:X') > > → X is matched as a case sensitive literal > > See the comment in the new patch I sent about 'user()' already lowercasing > 'literal:' and 're:'. I'd consider it a bug, but it's been in since mid > 2012. Attempting to channel Matt, I'm guessing we are stuck with that since > it is so old, but wanted to see what others think. Guessing at motivations for user() lowercasing: most email hosts are case-insensitive for the user part, even though rfc(2)822 doesn't require it. (Mostly stating this so that there's some trail of pondering if this ever comes up in the future.) _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel