On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:49:38PM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote: > >> 2) An activation patch is its own inverse. Since the activation > >> patch does not modify the repository state, it should be clear that > >> the patch is its own inverse. > > > >By similar logic, (_B_) is another inverse of (_A_). Surely that's not > >true? The inverse of (_A_) must be determined by some semantics that > >haven't been discussed yet, no? > > Good point. I'm looking and looking for something else we state or > discussed that would force the activation patch to be the unique > inverse of itself. I cannot think of anything here. David can you > think of something? > > I would argue that we want an inverse, and we know that the activation > patch does not change other patches during commutation (and has no > direct affect on the pristine cache), so the simplest inverse we can > choose is itself. So that's exactly what we do. We take the simplest > approach.
Correct. It isn't true that the inverse of (_A_) *must* be (_A_), but it's the simplest choice. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
