[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ediff refinement issues
From: |
Samuel Wales |
Subject: |
Re: ediff refinement issues |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Mar 2021 21:48:18 -0700 |
for purpoes of the test do something like this:
# asdfjkansdkljfan ksd fnak nsdflkadsnfkansdkfnakdsnf
# aklsfdnakljfnsdkasdnfja sdn fkljad nsfkj ansdkfn aksdjfna
# ksjfndk ajdnsf kajsndkfjansdkfjn ja nsdkjfn askdj fnakjs fdnakj
# nsdfkaj dns
then fill to a narrow fill column.
On 3/28/21, Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/26/11, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 1) When there are only whitespace differences in normal
>>> paragraphs, such as by refilling, ediff works well. It
>>> says there are only whitespace differences and does not
>>> highlight any words.
>>>
>>> However, if the paragraphs are commented (for example,
>>> with ;;; in elisp or # in shell), it highlights the ;;;
>>> or the #. it also sometimes highlights words as a side
>>> effect.
>>
>> I don't see that. Maybe give a concrete example. What I see is that
>> whitespace
>> is either ignored everywhere or it is not ignored at all (toggle this
>> with
>> `##').
>
> you are confusing different features. take a commented paragraph with
> a few long lines, save it to a. fill it. save it to b. now do diff
> mode on it and also ediff on it.
>
> you should notice that diff mode correctly notices tht the only
> non-whitgespaceish ifference is the comment prefix. ediff thinks
> words changed.
>
--
The Kafka Pandemic
Please learn what misopathy is.
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html