> For plugin patches I think they would have to > be defined in some declarative patch language from which darcs > could deduce how to commute them.
It doesn't have to be fully declarative does it? Haskell would do. I imagine a patch type called "add patch type". Patches of the "add patch type" type contain Haskell code which implements all the necessary operations to implement the new patch type. They also contain the name of the new patch type, some documentation string, and perhaps some hooks for the UI. Now the problem is that some patches which are of some patch types are irreversible, or otherwise they tend to not-commute too often. That problem can be worked-around by not pulling those patches, or even not pulling that patch-type. People would then be motivated to define new, better, more freely commutable patch-types. Regards, Zooko P.S. Oh, does Haskell have a convenient "eval" function for Haskell code in the absence of the Haskell compiler? Uh-oh. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
