5 ms·
These are definitely not "semantic" diffs on the original source code (in this case, OpenSCAD barf language). When people say that visual diff is hard, they are
by kanzure 14y ago
These are definitely not "semantic" diffs on the original source code (in this case, OpenSCAD barf language). When people say that visual diff is hard, they are usually referring to the semantic aspects, not so much the problem of coloring missing or added triangles..
- iamwil 14y agoThe semantic aspects would need to be captured with each diff. Currently, if you don't label a change with "Added super sonic ears", there's no way a computer would know those were ears. Or were you thinking of something else wrt to semantic diffs?
- kanzure 14y agoYes, super sonic ears. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing like automatic summarization for code commits either, so I was not claiming that people ask for that. When a feature branch is merged into a mainline branch, usually an engineer is looking for commit messages and commit visualizations about "a new way for managing excess heat" rather than "here are some messy triangles that you probably don't care about". The message conveyed by the second is not entirely the same as the message conveyed by the first. The second might complement the first, but if it's really about complementing then the committer would ideally craft the second's message to communicate meaning just as he crafts the message in the first..