Matthieu MOY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Cool. Thinking of a revision as a sequence of items does make using
lists directly seem cleaner.
> 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 !).
:o)
Mark
--
Mark Triggs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
