Quoting Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all,
>
> At the moment we're representing revision lists as regular lists like:
>
> ("archive" "category" "branch" "version" "revision")
[...]
> there are quite a few places in the code where we've assumed that
> revisions are represented as lists and used things like apply, butlast,
> etc. to work with them.
I also agree that it is usually no good practice to use the underlying
representation of a data-structure, but in this particular case, the structure
(archive, category, branch, version, revision) actually represents a sequence, a
kind of path in the archive tree. "branch" comes after "category", and before
"version".
So, I consider our current usage of the structure to be at the same time
compact, efficient, and conceptually clean.
Still, I admit that there are a lot of other places where I used lists for
something conceptually unrelated to a list (and used caddddr & friends. Pouahh
!).
--
Matthieu
-------------------------------------------------
envoyé via Webmail/IMAG !
