《四庫全書總目》「春秋公羊傳注疏提要」條言「何休《解詁》但釋傳而不釋經」，此說之謬已遞經前賢辨正，即指出何休兼釋經傳，何休之注經可分為經下注經與傳末注經兩部分，並進而提出分經附傳當始於何休。何休兼釋經傳固確，但通過考察後漢經傳分合情況、何休《春秋公羊解詁》題名變遷、解詁與何休注釋體例，可以發現何休注本當仍是經傳獨立本，何休所注當分為《春秋》與《公羊》兩部分。《解詁》「傳末釋經」情況的普遍存在，不但可以佐證何休注本非分經附傳本，更彰顯了《解詁》實為漢末之「章句變體」。而何休之所以採用「解詁」作為書名，亦是漢末今古文之爭在經書注釋體式中的體現。

The Siku quanshu zongmu statement that He Xiu’s Chunqiu Gongyang jiegu interprets the commentary (zhuan) but does not explain the classic (jing) has been corrected by previous scholars, who have shown that He Xiu’s work can be divided into commentary at the end of the jing and at the end of the zhuan, while interspersing the zhuan within the jing has been considered He Xiu’s innovation. It is correct that He Xiu interprets the zhuan and explains the jing at the same time, but after examining the separation and combination of jing and zhuan that occurred in the Eastern Han, changes to the title of the Chunqiu Gongyang jiegu, and He Xiu’s principles of annotation, we can show that the texts annotated by He Xiu were still independent jing and zhuan, that is, the Chunqiu and the Gongyang zhuan. The presence of explanations of the jing after the zhuan in his work confirms that the zhuan was not interspersed in the jing at that time, and also shows that the Chunqiu Gongyang jiegu was a variant of the zhangju mode of scholarship in the late Han Dynasty. He Xiu’s use of jiegu in the title of his book embodies a principle of dispute between the “ancient” and “modern” textual schools in the late Han.