Is there any particular reason that our utf8 type is ATOMIC_NOVERIFY() instead of ATOMIC()?
Also, does anyone have any thoughts about reorganizing vocab somewhat? In particular, DECORATE() seems kinda backwards -- if the 'revision'/'roster'/whatever was the template argument instead of the outermost template, then a number of our transform functions could be templatized themselves instead of manually defining however many copies. Would there be objections to deriving vocab types from eachother? We seem to be using utf8 for a lot of things, and it might be nice to have distinct types for these uses while preserving that they're still in utf-8 format. -- Timothy Free (experimental) public monotone hosting: http://mtn-host.prjek.net _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
