On 6/19/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net> writes:
> > This seems like a really random thing to require. It would be much nicer to
> > editor drivers for us to change those two editors to, open getting a
> > close_file() with no intermediate apply_textdelta(), perform the empty
> > apply_textdelta() behavior on the caller's behalf.
>
> ( s/open/upon/, right? )
>
> No, please no... :-)
>
> open_file() means "Something happened to this file, but I haven't told
> you what yet"; if followed immediately by close_file(), the pair of
> calls means "Something happened to this file, and I'm just not telling
> you what, period."
>
> Something has to happen between the calls for the consumer of the
> delta to know what was done to the file. If there's nothing between
> the calls, then we just don't know (think skelta). Invoking an empty
> call to apply_textdelta() would just be incorrect, IMHO.
Karl, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Do you believe it's
incorrect to call add_file followed by close_file with nothing in
between? (Note that it's add_file, not open_file.) Or that it's
incorrect to assume anything about the contents of a file mentioned in
that way?
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser_at_mit.edu | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 20 13:50:08 2007