On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Petr Rockai<[email protected]> wrote: > But that would be wrong! HLint can already do that, but we have to ratify > *instances* of the problem, not files. What you propose would disable the > check > for all of the file, and that's naturally undesirable. > > The fact the ratification mechanism is ugly is OK -- it we found ourselves > ratifying too many things, it would mean that we are doing something wrong > (i.e. that our policy is broken). > > Yours, > Petr.
Are there that many double or triple uses of the dangerous functions in Darcs code? (Is the ratified module technique even foolproof? It would seem as vulnerable to someone using the Ratified.getContents/whatever 'just to get it to compile' as to someone just reusing the function in a ignored module.) Which is uglier, risking the small chance of missing a double use, or supporting this ratified module stuff forever? -- gwern _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
