Sorry for that. That'll teach me to get impatient. > Why not put get_log_discreetly directly in Record.lhs under the name of > get_patchname_discreetly? It isn't clear to me how their functionality > differs, or why we want the one rather than the other.
I wanted to, but I got tired and couldn't figure out how.
> Specifically, it seems like editing the existing patchname is something
> that we want even when recording (particularly if we're using a stored log
> file from a previous record, we might want to specify both --log-file and
> --edit-long-description, or whatever the flags are called).
Right. I had overlooked that.
> get_patchinfo :: [DarcsFlag] -> Maybe PatchInfo -> IO PatchInfo
At first I thought that was exactly the right idea; then I realised that
record likes to ask for author and date before asking about patches.
We've got a PatchInfo sandwhich on our hands. But I'm going to follow
a variant of your suggestion and (i) remove get_patchname altogether
(ii) have it be subsumed by a more general
get_log :: [DarcsFlag] -> Maybe (String, [String]) -> IO String ->
[Patch] -> IO (String, [String], Maybe String)
I'm hoping this will be simpler and less error prone.
--
Eric Kow http://www.loria.fr/~kow
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9 Merci de corriger mon français.
pgpCdh1zkQEB6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list darcs-devel@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
