On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:09:27PM +0200, Tommy Pettersson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:26:08AM -0700, David Roundy wrote: > > wrt the idea of extracting flag names from their DarcsFlag, I think I'm > > probably with Eric on this, in that it seems like a good idea. I can see > > Tommy's point that in general it's a bug to change the name of any flags, > > but making things "automatically right" is just a good thing. You could > > Then I have one more objection. My point of view is the > readability of the source code. What would the name of the > option identifier be but nearly the same as the string > representation of the option? Anything else would be confusing. > So this "automatically right thing" would from my point of view > do the wrong thing, by not updating the name of the option in > the source code (instead hiding it under a level of abstraction > for no good).
Just to argue the other side (once again--it occurred to me just as I sent that last message), an advantage of an abstraction layer would be that even though the name is essentially identical to the raw string, the type checker would force you to get it right, which is often right. I'm ambivalent on this question at this stage... -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
