Bert Huijben wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julian Foad [mailto:julian.f...@wandisco.com] > > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 16:23 +0200, Bert Huijben wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Julian Foad [mailto:julian.f...@wandisco.com] > > > > First I wondered why the delta_editor_t isn't a suitable interface for > > > > diffs, and why the WC defines its own 'callback' type for this. One > > > > reason is because we want a symmetric diff, one that provides the full > > > > content of both what's added and what's deleted. Although the > > > > summarizing diff doesn't need to know about file content or property > > > > deletions, it does want to know about file and directory deletions, so > > > > that would seem to be a good thing. So why aren't we using the > > > > diff_callbacks_t here? > > > > > > Maybe because the diff callbacks transfer the full texts of both > > > before and after a change to provide them to the callback? > > > > It appears that the diff_callbacks_t can already avoid that: the > > 'file_opened' callback says: > > > > /* This function is called before @a file_changed to allow callbacks to > > * skip the most expensive processing of retrieving the file data. */ > > If you do that (returning skip status) you don't get the information > on text and property changes. > > How would you generate the summary without those callbacks being > invoked?
I guess you can't. So you're right, this is one reason why we're not using the current set of diff callbacks. - Julian
