> > Yeah, I figured it might be safe from a darcs-internals point of view. > > I'll push it sometime this week or maybe this weekend. That said, would > > it work as a solution to just remove the > > isJust (apply_to_slurpy (tokreplace f toks old new) work) > > since the pristine cache check is all that we really need? > > Right, that would give the behavior you've described, but I prefer our > current behavior, which I think is rather more intuitive.
Ah, and I've finally convinced myself that the current behaviour is ok, and for that matter desirable. The trick for me was to realise that it only applies cleanly to working if all instances of the target token are removed, so doing a replace is perfectly 'ok' in that there will be no surprises (again, in strictly UI terms). Somehow I was carrying around the idea that we would be affecting pristine tokens the user hadn't thought about, but that isn't going to happen because they'd all have been hunk-removed by previous changes in working. (I was already planning to push to patch in as-is anyway, but hey being convinced is always a nice bonus) -- Eric Kow http://www.loria.fr/~kow PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9 Merci de corriger mon français.
pgpUzNljSF2MH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
