Tommy Pettersson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:53:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Hm, I probably was not thinking "plugin" enough but instead more
like a scripting extension, something that can only express
valid patch types. But maybe I wasn't thinking at all.
I believe the last time I spoke on the subject it was with regards to
some form of declarative syntax description. Basically, allow someone
to plug in a language BNF or maybe something a bit more obscure but
Haskell-friendlier and more flexible like a Packrat Parser description.
Then these "syntax-patch-types" would simply diff between two parse trees.
David rejected it for forcing people to submit only fully-parsable
patches, and tough to keep those "works in progress". I still think
having such syntax-patch-types might be useful. (I also pointed out the
possibility of "canonicalization", rerendering a parse tree as a
"perfect" text document to allow for potential commutation with normal
hunk changes and as a possibility for handling works in progress (ie,
parse as much as possible and then fallback and treat what remains as a
hunk).)
--
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
