Today I comment out that two cases and I run "darcs-test --unit=yes" without any failing test. Maybe that's interesting (or maybe not).
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Iago Abal <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I'm talking about this two cases. > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Ian Lynagh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:25:01PM +0000, Iago Abal wrote: >> > >> > What commuteFP does is just trivially commute any id-hunk (stupid-hunk >> does >> > not seem a good name, since they make sense), and this is definetly >> wrong >> > (at least in theory, since effect-preserving is no longer true). So you >> was >> > right Eric, Darcs could end up trying to apply a Hunk f 20 [] [] when f >> has >> > 10 lines. >> >> You're talking about these, right?: >> >> commuteFP f (Hunk line1 [] [] :< p2) = >> seq f $ Succeeded (FP f (unsafeCoerceP p2) :< FP f (Hunk line1 [] [])) >> commuteFP f (p2 :< Hunk line1 [] []) = >> seq f $ Succeeded (FP f (Hunk line1 [] []) :< FP f (unsafeCoerceP p2)) >> >> These look wrong to me too. If nothing else, I'd expect them to update >> the line numbers in the Hunk/Hunk case. >> >> >> Thanks >> Ian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> darcs-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users >> > > > > -- > Iago Abal Rivas > -- Iago Abal Rivas
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
