On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 04:31:14PM +0000, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>
>> Here's a proposed "screenshot" how I think it could work more  
>> intuitively:
>>
>> #####
>> Interactive hunk splitting:
>>    - move the ==SPLIT line to the location where you would like the hunk to 
>> be split
>>    - Otherwise changing the content is not supported.
>> ==BEGIN
>> ==SPLIT
>>        use Data::Dumper;
>>        warn Dumper ('you!');
>> ==END
>> ######
>
> How would this work if there were lines being removed and added in the  
> hunk?

I really like the simplicity of Mark's example.  I can understand
it immediately.

An idea I had for allowing lines within the hunk to not be
included in any resulting hunk is having ==SPLIT really be an
alias for:

  ==END
  ==BEGIN

So then we could have a hunk like this:

  line I do not want
  line I do want
  line I do want
  line I do not want
  line I do want
  line I do want
  line I do not want

When we select hunk editing it would look like this:

  Interactive hunk splitting:
    - move the ==SPLIT line to the location where you would like the hunk to be 
split
    - lines which should not be a part of the any hunk can be
      moved before the ==BEGIN, after the ==END, or between an
      ==END and ==BEGIN pair in the middle of the hunk
  ==BEGIN
  ==SPLIT
  line I do not want
  line I do want
  line I do want
  line I do not want
  line I do want
  line I do want
  line I do not want
  ==END

The user would then edit the hunk so that it looks something like
this:

  line I do not want
  ==BEGIN
  line I do want
  ==SPLIT
  line I do want
  ==END
  line I do not want
  ==BEGIN
  line I do want
  line I do want
  ==END
  line I do not want

Or we could just get rid of ==SPLIT and only use ==END and
==BEGIN, if that makes it more clear.

-kolibrie

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users

Reply via email to