Hi, "David Roundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One major advantage of this approach is that it decreases the number > of arguments to these functions, which should make them simpler and > safer to use. indeed, looking at how we deal with hashed pristine, and that there's no other apparent use of hashSlurped and friends, it might be a good idea to remove all parametrisation of that directory and probably rename the functions to make it apparent they only work with pristine...
slurpHashedPristine, writeHashedPristine, syncHashedPristine maybe? It seems there are also other functions that are shared between pristine.hashed/ and patches/, and I am inclined to propose adding something like: data HashedDir = HashedPristineDir | HashedPatchesDir hashedDir :: HashedDir -> String hashedDir HashedPristineDir = "hashed.pristine" hashedDir HashedPatchesDir = "patches" so that we can change "String" in signatures of those functions to HashedDir, which looks much more type-safe to me. That's about for proposals, I guess I'll go to have some tea now and read a book, then, if you feel like such changes might be worthwhile, get them to a patch form (the rework of "hashed repair" might take a little longer, so if not tonight CEST, I'd like to have patches by tomorrow evening). Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
