19 Sep
2025
19 Sep
'25
12:28 p.m.
On Thu Sep 18 17:44:15 2025 +0000, Matteo Bruni wrote:
Not new, but I just realized that `dst_ctype` is a misnomer and a bit confusing. Not something to be changed in this patch though.
I _think_ I used that name because it matches with `dst_component` which already existed when I added this. Is the confusion that it comes from the source format? I guess it could make more sense as just `cur_ctype` or `ctype`.