On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 13:06:07 -0700, David Roundy wrote: > Yeah, that's the plan. As long as it works fine without > --with-type-witnesses, the plan is that we'll convert modules to use type > witnesses one at a time.
Ok. I'm happy with that. > And converting *all* of darcs is not currently on our timetable. Nod. You might want to convert those tests (Darcs.Patch.Test) earlier than later just to help ensure that you didn't inadvertently break anything in transforming ',' to ':<' and ':' to ':>:'. Well, I guess it's not terribly likely, but it may not be that large an investment anyway. > > I should read (p1 :< p2) as p1 before p2, right? > > No, that would mean p1 after p2. Do you find the arrow more intuitive the > other direction? Well, there is an immediate temptation to treat the '<' as anything that sounds like 'less than' or 'before'... but you might have your own notational constraints, so I won't advocate either way. > > Also, I wonder if we want > > :< and > > :>: to be different directions... > > The idea is that (p2 :< p1) means p1 before p2 (notice that I changed their > order) and that (p1 :>: ps) means p1 before ps. > We'd rather move over to using :>, as in (p1 :> p2), but that would involve Oh! Yes, it would be nice when that's uniform (but as you say, only when the the safety is in place). Does that mean that you will eventually do away with having both directions and just flip the order of the arguments? -- Eric Kow http://www.loria.fr/~kow PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9 Merci de corriger mon français.
pgp8meNyVqgap.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
