Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 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 :).
>
This was a half joke, btw. I realize that it unless i make the whole
structure opaque that we will run into structure size, etc, issues later on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 18 17:06:38 2006