On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:17:26AM +0000, Edwin Thomson wrote:
> For issue 328. It's not the more complete solution suggested that
> allows asking for more dependencies - it just copies across the old
> explicit dependencies.
> [Amending a patch doesn't remove explicit dependencies
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
I've reviewed this patch, and I think it's fine. I have some
suggestions though.
If you put (issue328) somewhere in the patch name, it's easier
to trace bugs and changes later.
> hunk ./AmendRecord.lhs 155
> - infopatch (set_pi_date d pinf) $
> + infodepspatch (set_pi_date d pinf) pdeps $
How about something like this instead:
let ...
infodepspatch pinfo pds p = adddeps (infopatch pinfo p) pds
in
infodepspatch (set_pi_date d pinf) pdeps $
...
Then there is no need to export from Patch one more function
with one more interface that does almost the same thing. I'm not
totally sure this is a good idea, but keeping module interfaces
small and orthogonal is a generally good idea.
To get a simple implementation of --ask-deps, fixp could take
the deps as argument, and it would be the job of amendrecord_cmd
to either ask for them if the --ask-deps flag was given
(discarding the old ones), or else getdeps the old ones.
--
Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
