Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > I think you could have named boring_regexps as boringRegexps if you > wanted. Maybe, not sure I like to mix foo_bar's with fooWibbles in one module (especially if there's just one of the "other" kind).
> http://wiki.darcs.net/CodingStyle on case Yeah, well. >> hunk ./src/Darcs/Repository/Prefs.lhs 269 >> - return $ actual_boring_file_filter $ map mkRegex (bores++gbs) >> + return $ map mkRegex $ bores ++ gbs >> + >> +boring_file_filter :: IO ([FilePath] -> [FilePath]) >> +boring_file_filter = boring_regexps >>= return . actual_boring_file_filter > > actual_boring_file_filter `fmap` boring_regexps ? I guess so. ;) > Provide a restrictBoring (like restrictSubpaths) in Darcs.Gorsvet. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> +restrictBoring = do >> + boring <- boring_regexps >> + let boring' (AnchoredPath (Name x:_)) _ | x == BS.pack "_darcs" = False >> + boring' p _ = not $ any (\rx -> isJust $ matchRegex rx p') boring > > What about paths that include _darcs in them (subrepos?) These won't have _darcs as the first path component. [snip] > This patch adds this function (factored out from unrecordedChanges) which > returns pending patches that touch a list of files. The filenames it accepts > are the current unrecorded names. It accepts "either" (pre-rename, post-rename), after a fashion. It is the set that you would expect to show up in darcs whatsnew <file>. 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
