Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> Daniel Berlin writes:
> > Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> > > Daniel Berlin writes:
> > > > Daniel Rall wrote:
> > > > > How about SVN_MERGE_RANGE_SINGLE_REV (or SVN_MERGE_RANGE_ONE_REV or
> > > > > SVN_MERGE_RANGE_REV) and SVN_MERGE_RANGE_SPAN as alternate names?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, whatever.
> > > > > Do we have to name this union, or can it be completely anonymous?
> > > >
> > > > Anonymous unions are not C89 :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > What about getting away with the union altogether and just let the
> > > start and end revs be equal if the range is one revision long?
> > > Or are you planning to extend the union?
> >
> > I was thinking of trying sparse bitmaps and some other things to
> > represent non-contiguous groups nicely.
> >
> > But if you all think it's too complex, i'm happy to get rid of the union.
> >
>
> Maybe better to make it opaque in that case so we can change the
> representation if need be. This applies mostly if we want to be able
> to experiment over minor releases, of course.
Sure, i'll hide it all behind macros :).
>
> //Peter
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 18 16:58:45 2006