ioeric added a comment.

In, @djasper wrote:

> I actually think this is a good example. So lets assume we'd write a tool to 
> fully quote binary expressions, e.g. that turns
>   if (a * b + c * d == 10) ...
> into
>   if (((a * b) + (c * d)) == 10) ...
> So, here, we would be inserting two "(" and two ")" at the same locations. 
> And, as you correctly mention, the order doesn't matter because we are 
> inserting the same string twice. I think this is actually good behavior.

I agree that this is good behavior.

> Deduplication is an interesting concern, but I think we probably want to 
> handle that at a different layer. E.g. in the use case above, deduplicating 
> would be quite fatal :).

Okay, it does make more sense to handle deduplication in a different layer.

So, with this assumption, the implementation should be much easier now: when 
there is conflict found in `add`, check this condition. If `A` and `B` are 
`order-dependent` as defined above, we then 
`merge(getReplacementInChangedCode(B))` into the set.

cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to