Excerpts from Eric Kow's message of Fri Sep 18 09:14:25 +0200 2009: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 22:52:30 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > > This is an initial attempt at adding interactive editing of hunk > > patches. I don't necessarily expect this sequence to be applied > > as-is, though it could be. > > What a treat! I'm going to push the easy patches first > > * add "parallel pairs" > * break out and export run_editor utility function > * Add utility code for editing text > > And leave the meat of this bundle for later (perhaps somebody else > wants to tag themselves in?)
I have a question about the hunk editing feature. Does it leave the pristine tree as is (like git), or not? [...] > break out and export run_editor utility function > ------------------------------------------------ > > +run_editor :: FilePath -> IO ExitCode > > +run_editor f = do > > + ed <- get_editor > > + exec_interactive ed f > > + `ortryrunning` exec_interactive "emacs" f > > + `ortryrunning` exec_interactive "emacs -nw" f > > + `ortryrunning` exec_interactive "nano" f > > +#ifdef WIN32 > > + `ortryrunning` exec_interactive "edit" f > > +#endif > > I think all new functions should be camelCase. It's not that I care, > it's just that I want it to stop even being a question. The desired > outcome is that we never get anybody having to scratch their heads > looking for a deeper meaning or conventions behind the case. I think (if my memory serve me well) that it is one of David's convention; that is: camel case for exported values and underscores for internal ones. Which would make sense since you are exporting a previously internal thing, right? Best regards, -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
