On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Reinier Lamers <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi all, > > On Tuesday 09 June 2009 12:55:04 Petr Rockai wrote: > > Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > > > Sorry to drag this out some more. Just remember that I'm only here to > > > offer alternative suggestions if they can break us out of a loop. > > > > All I can say now is patches welcome. I refuse to spend any more time on > > this (in comparison to the size of the "undefined" subthread, the code in > > question is utterly irrelevant... can I say bikeshed now?). > > This is not just about your code. If this supposed bikeshed reaches a > conclusion, that conclusion will be a rule for all code that comes in the > future. A general rule that there shall be no undefineds in darcs' source > could be a useful result. Or a rule that every fromJust should have a > comment > explaining why it is really safe (perhaps haskell_policy already does that, > not sure). By the way, we have a macro, "impossible" for cases that should never be reached. Not my favorite because it doesn't take a description, but it does let the reader know when something should not happen. And it prints the line number when darcs crashes. Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
