Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:38:38 -0500
Message-Id:	<200301061838.h06Iccq26150@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning:	envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT delorie DOT com using -f
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<3E19BA39.65EB1511@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:17:45 +0000)
Subject:	Re: diff format (was: Re: your mail)
References:	<200301061401 DOT h06E1E118542 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <3E19BA39 DOT 65EB1511 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

diff defaults to the "old style" diffs, using < and >

Context diffs use + and - with before and after code shown separately.

Unified diffs use + and - with the changed lines shown together in one
code chunk

Personally, I prefer context diffs.  I find unified diffs difficult to
read when I'm trying to picture the overall change, since I can't
picture the before and after code easily, especially when there's
multiple changed lines in each chunk.  If you're making a one line
change, or effectively one line per chunk, unified diffs are better.
When you change multiple lines in one spot, context diffs are better.

- Raw text -