2015-04-21 10:45 GMT+02:00 Jan Vrany <[email protected]>: > On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 08:41 +0200, Thierry Goubier wrote: > > Le 21/04/2015 07:46, stepharo a écrit : > > > > > >> No, I changed MCMethodDefinition>>= to be more relaxed about > > >> sources and treat two sources that differ only in leading/trailing > > >> spaces as "same". This way, these methods do not occur in merge tool > > >> at all. > > >> This is just a quick fix - much better would be to compare AST's and > > >> treat whitespace-changes specially (i.e., provide a filter to > show/hide > > >> whitespace-only-changes). > > > > > > OK now I wonder if we want to have methods with different end of line > > > conventions in the system. > > > > I pushed a change to MCMethodDefinition>>#= a short while ago because > > source code was seeing line ending changes... > > Could you point me to that? If you don't mind, I'll merge it as it could > help to solve problems I might soon run into :-) >
Well, this is just the line in the "=" which says: aDefinition source withSqueakLineEndings = self source withSqueakLineEndings > > > > > AST-based comparison would be nice there; however what about the cost? > > Some of MC operations are already fairly slow as they are now. > > If done on a tool level (where this belongs to IMO) it won't be much of > a problem. Only one might have to wait for window to come up a > little longer... > The problem is that this = is used whenever you want to load a method definition or to determine what are the changes you want to save. Repeat by the number of methods and you start to see an effect ;) Try loading Roassal for an example of what I mean... In the other hand, as long as we're using the RBParser to get an AST, parsing is fast. Thierry > > > > Thierry > > > > > I do not remember the discussion we got long time ago. > > > > > > Stef > > >>> Do you think that we should integrate it? > > >> Yes. > > >> > > >>> Stef > > >>> > > >>> Le 20/4/15 12:36, Jan Vrany a écrit : > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> I just wanted to merge some code in Monticello and the merge tool > > >>>> marked all methods as conflict because their source differ in > trailing > > >>>> whitespace (newline). The diff panel on the right does not show any > > >>>> difference. > > >>>> > > >>>> > http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~JanVrany/Misc/versions/Monticello-Fixes-JanVrany.1 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Here's a fix for this particular problem in case somebody runs into > the > > >>>> same problem. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best, Jan > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
