Matthew Sackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:19:02PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:54:23 +0100, Matthew >> Sackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> matthew> Each hook can return one of three values: everything ok; >> matthew> non-fatal error; fatal error. >> >> Good. We need to decide how that should work, because nil doesn't >> necessarely imply an error (let alone that it doesn't describe the >> fatality of an error). > > Right, so if it was Haskell and not lua then it'd be > (a, ErrorStatus) where a is polymorphic in the type of the > result of the hook. I suggest something similar - a tuple where one > indicates the result of the hook (or nil if no result) and the other > indicates the error. > > But this opens up a large pot of worms. If the hook is some sort of > "does x have permission to do y" then when do you stop? Is it a > conjunction or disjunction of results? Or is it a 3-valued logic and you > just go through the list of hooks until you find a definitive > True/False? In which case, what happens if all functions return "meh"? > > Bother. Maybe this should only be permitted on hooks that don't return a > result. It makes in rather easier... simplest thing first and all > that?
Is there an inventory of what the current hooks do? We don't want to have to rewrite a lot of current hook functions for this. -- -- Stephe _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
