At Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:59:11 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:28:58AM -0700, Jeremy Shaw wrote: > > At Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:48:03 +0100, > > Ian Lynagh wrote: > > > > > I've just had a quick read of > > > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/prakash92undoing.html > > > AFAICS this only really deals with the case where there are no > > > conflicts, and doesn't talk about merging. > > > > AFAIK, the papers do not talking about merging. > > > > They cover conflicts in the case where you want to remove/reorder an > > older patch which conflicts with a newer one. > > Only in the case where you have already undone the newer one, and thus > can just remove both the new patch and its inverse, I thought.
That sounds right to me. > > Since I don't know the darcs internals or patch theory, I don't have a > > concept of how much is still missing > > The difficult part is still missing :-) Right, but is the difficulty in thinking up the ideas and figuring out solutions to the problems ? Or is the implementation also neccessarily very large and complex (even if implemented in my toy code which only has two operations: 'insert' and 'delete') I guess the best question is, how far from reality is the theory of patches as written in the darcs manual: http://darcs.net/manual/node8.html Is the additional complexity/difficulty in actually implementing functions like unwind, or is there just a bunch more theory missing from that page? Would a function like unwind be easier to implement, if it was done in my toy setting, and if I did not care about efficiency and computational complexity? thanks! j. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
