You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Briefly, adding support for .debdiff as an alternative extension for .diff (and .patch) by using the TOML mappings (src/syntax_mapping/builtins/) modifiel the relevant line of the output of bat --list-languages thus
-Diff diff, patch.+Diff diff, patch, *.debdiff.
The *. before debdiff breaks the symmetry, making the TOML-implemented extension look different from the stardard ones. Should they all look the same?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
My vote is that I think it would make sense for them to look the same. I do realize it means special handling in the code though. The only other downside I can think of is one would lose the ability to tell if it was a bat-mapped-mapping or a "built-in by the syntax definition" mapping, but I can't imagine that mattering to anyone really?...
This question arose here: #2940 (comment).
Briefly, adding support for
.debdiff
as an alternative extension for.diff
(and.patch
) by using the TOML mappings (src/syntax_mapping/builtins/
) modifiel the relevant line of the output ofbat --list-languages
thusThe
*.
beforedebdiff
breaks the symmetry, making the TOML-implemented extension look different from the stardard ones. Should they all look the same?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: