On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:38:48AM +0100, Jamie Webb wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 05:03:07PM +0200, Albert Reiner wrote: > > The real question is whether this inv(P)TPR will be equivalent to R as > > far as commutations are concerned, i.e., whether inv(P)TP = id is > > recognized and patches will commute as if inv(P)TP were not even > > there. > > AFAICT, Darcs does not consider that inv(P)P = id, so, err, no.
Indeed, this is a mistake one of the students in my group has made, which caused trouble for precisely this reason, in that he ended up recording a patch that depended on both P and inv(P). Best to use branches for excursions. With the next-generation conflict-handling (which is still buggy), this should be handled better. -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
