Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > Granularity: We've touched on the fact that the 'ignore' mechanism does > not catch cases where a forbidden function is used more than once in a > given function.
Wouldn't that mean your function is too big? ;-) > The explicit ratification mechanism would force us to ratify each and > every use. It also means that the ratification happens in the same file, rather than in an "ignore" file that's hidden away in test/. That probably means a Ratify.foo approach is less likely to get out of sync. > Transparency: Explicit ratification is more transparent; you get > something baked right into the source file "yes, this is a banned > function, but we are using it because it's acceptable in this specific > context" I guess that's the same thing (I should read the whole post before I start to reply...) > I'd like this to be settled by consensus if possible. But you know > where I stand if this keeps dragging out. I don't much like either approach for ratification, but I would prefer EITHER to doing nothing (i.e. keeping the old haskell_policy). _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
