On Mon, 08 Apr 2019 14:27:53 -0400, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > On Sun, 2019-04-07 at 09:55 +0900, Yuya Nishihara wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 14:42:38 -0400, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > > > > @@ -624,7 +627,18 @@ def checkstatus(repo, subset, pat, field > > > break > > > else: > > > return False > > > - files = repo.status(c.p1().node(), c.node())[field] > > > + p1 = c.p1() > > > + status = repo.status(p1.node(), c.node()) > > > + if field == 3: > > > + copymap = copiesmod.pathcopies(p1, c, m) > > > + removed = status[2] > > > + files = [dest for (dest, src) in copymap.items() if src not > > > in removed] > > > + elif field == 4: > > > + copymap = copiesmod.pathcopies(p1, c, m) > > > + removed = status[2] > > > + files = [dest for (dest, src) in copymap.items() if src in > > > removed] > > > + else: > > > + files = status[field] > > > > Maybe we can turn the field argument into a lambda function. It doesn't make > > sense to introduce pseudo indices for copies and renames. > > I don't understand what you mean. Are you saing that the caller should > pass a function that should say how to get the appropriate data out of > the status object or copymap objects?
Something like that. My point is that checkstatus(..., getcopiedfiles) will be more readable than checkstatus(..., 3), which sounds like returning the 3rd status field. _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
