Stephen Leake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thus it would seem reasonable that _all_ dispatching functions that > are interactive should be in dvc-back-end-wrappers.
Why? A function which is defined with `define-dvc-unified-command' doesn't need that, since by definition, there is already a <back-end>-whatever command for each back-end. `dvc-back-end-wrappers' is only needed when an interactive function is defined with (defun dvc-<command> ...), with dvc-<command> actually doing some dispatching later on. I've put the ones I found in the current definition, can you point out the missing ones you're thinking of? > This could prove troublesome; dvc-back-end-wrappers has the argument > list as well as the name, so any change to the actual function's > argument list must also be made in dvc-back-end-wrappers. It would be > nice to be able to check or enforce that automatically, but I suspect > that's not possible. Never say impossible ;-). But that's at least non-trivial: the issue is that at the moment, we can't rely on the loading order. The dvc-back-end-wrappers stuff can be called before or after the rest of DVC is loaded (before for bzr*.el, since b comes before d, but after for xgit*.el for example). > We should at least put a comment at each function definition that > says "also update dvc-back-end-wrappers". Good idea. -- Matthieu _______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
