At Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:53:02 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > I understand where I went wrong now, but on reflection it still seems > odd that the parent context isn't explicitly mentioned in the API. > Instead writing > world.parent.commit(world); > would make clear what two worlds are affected... but that's > unnecessarily verbose. So not necessarily an improvement to anything > other than my originally-confused brain.
Yes.... we are finding that occasionally, you would want to "test-commit" to an experimental world. Say, you started some exploration in a world and getting satisfy with it. But before really commiting this world to the top-level world and make it permanent, you would like to see if this does not break some application specific invariants. To do so, you would want to make a new world that is almost like the top level world (thus a new child of the top level) and merge changes into it then perform some integrity checks safely in the world, Fix up a few things if necessary and then commit to the top-level world. A strict tree organization of worlds would not let us do this. > OK, my email is too long now, too! Then write it in Chinese next time! -- Yoshiki _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
