On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 14:07:35 +0100, Edwin Thomson wrote: > The new version (attached) modifies mRename for slurpies to be like > mRename for IO, so that it doesn't fail on renames with a nonexistent > source. Is doing that likely to make anything else fail?
I have reviewed the patch, and it mostly looks ok to me (i.e. know what it is trying to do, understand the code, and don't object to its goals) I confess that I don't know the slurpy code well enough to answer Edwin's question. But the parallel to mRename for IO seems convincing to me. If nobody complains, I will accept this patch on the next cycle. By the way, if anybody's interested in doing it, perhaps it would be worth refactoring first_application and second_application in diff_cmd (these are helper functions introduced by Edwin). Or maybe I'm wrong. You know how sometimes you try to refactor something and then you decide the less compact version was clearer? In any case, no big deal, just an insignificant. -- Eric Kow http://www.loria.fr/~kow PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9 Merci de corriger mon français.
pgphz2tHidTcm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
