On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:40:00 +0100, Iago Abal wrote: > commuteFP f (Hunk line1 [] [] :< p2) = seq f $ Succeeded (FP f > > (unsafeCoerceP p2) :< FP f (Hunk line1 [] [])) > > > commuteFP f (p2 :< Hunk line1 [] []) = seq f $ Succeeded (FP f (Hunk line1 > > [] []) :< FP f (unsafeCoerceP p2))รง > > > ...
> Why do you pattern match agains Hunk patches with empty "old" and "new" > content? Are they sensible? Huh. That looks weird. I only have more questions :-) Would you mind looking at commuteHunk and showing what the result would be in the 5 cases with and without this commuteFP case? (In other words, falling into the guards [where possible] with one of the hunks being empty in this fashion). It doesn't look like the result would be the same (no line number shifting). Are "empty" hunks like this really supposed to just float past? How do they generated? -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> For a faster response, try +44 (0)1273 64 2905 or xmpp:ko...@jabber.fr (Jabber or Google Talk only)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
