On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 09:17:16PM +0200, Eric Y. Kow wrote: > Sorry for that. That'll teach me to get impatient.
No problem, that's what patch review is for! > > 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. Sounds good! -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list darcs-devel@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
