Eric Kow wrote:
How about darcs-users for a wider audience?
Okay, I just sent off a copy there.
Maybe stuff like this is
worth noting on the wiki, with a general page of proposals on types of
patches? The way I figure, if something generates a lot of discussion,
it gets to be hard to follow. Having it all in condensed into a single
document helps.
True. Where would be the most appropriate places to start hanging such
a thing off the wiki?
Wow, that'd be really neat. I have a friend who says the exact same
thing, plus something to the effect of darcs needing more computer
scientists to be proving more patch-theory properties.
I'm glad I'm not the only one :-)
Is this something actionable for you?
Alas, probably not in the near future. It is something would love to
work on, but I've got a dissertation to write and a number of other
projects. However, in some regards it might be better to wait until ghc
adds a bit more support for dependent types. At that point, it will be
much easier to develop an integrated solution, than farming proofs out
to Coq.
There's a good handful of people wishing for the ability to recode files
(character encodings, line endings, trailing whitespace) in a
'meaningful' way, much like you'd do darcs replace instead of dumbly
moving hunks around. Do you think this thread is relevant?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.darcs.user/9418
Yes, this is somewhat relevant. Character-encodings, line endings,
etc. are all sorts of things I was thinking might be encoded as patch
"plugins". However, as I mentioned in my original e-mail the plugin
idea generalizes to things like quotienting over data more structured
that just text.
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
