On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Hyrum Wright wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:08:41 +0100:
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>
>> wrote:
>> > [1] For the [out] parameter, can we have @param[out,optional] and
>> > @param[out,mandatory] notations, or do we have to say "may be NULL"
>> > in the prose?)
>>
>> @param[out] is part of the doxygen markup (not just some arbitrary
>> notation). I don't know what it would do in the face of extra values
>> (see http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/commands.html#cmdparam)
>>
>
> Well, the [mandatory] and [optional] could be a nice extension to that
> syntax.
Agreed, though I'm not sure the doxygen parser would handle it.
>> > [2] How about introducing:
>> >
>> > struct svn_ra_node_t {
>> > const char *repos_relpath;
>> > svn_revnum_t peg;
>> > };
>> >
>> > struct svn_client_node_t {
>> > const char *path_or_URL;
>> > svn_opt_revision_t *peg;
>> > };
>> >
>> > (that will also help make the docstrings clearer)
>>
>> You'd probably want to the revision in there too, much like we do for
>> svn_client_copy_source_t. Both the peg revision and the operative
>> revision are used to specify a node (though in the absence of one, the
>> default is generally the other, I think).
>>
>
> Yeah, I can argue to have those structs both with/without the operative
> revision in them.
>
> Either way, what I had in mind was using these structs in APIs instead
> of having separate 'path' and 'peg_revision' arguments. This will
> simplify docstrings (we can say "the node" instead of "the path as it
> existed at the peg revision"), and it's logically correct too (represent
> logical tuples as structs: the 'node', as one unit, is the target of the
> operation).
Quick thought: are there APIs which take an array of target
paths/urls, but only a single peg/operative revision pair? Would
these need yet another struct?
-Hyrum
