[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: impending change #2...

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_galois.collab.net>
Date: 2001-02-09 15:23:03 CET

Karl Fogel <kfogel@galois.collab.net> writes:
> Another way of looking at it: it turns out there *is* a semantic
> difference between passing an target_rev argument vs calling a
> set_target_rev() function.
> With an argument, the editor knows at the time of calling replace_foo()
> or add_foo() that the target revision is either some number, or an
> invalid/ignored revision.
> But with a function, the editor has no way of knowing, at the time it
> calls replace_foo() or add_foo(), whether or not the
> set_target_revision() function *will be called* next.

Excuse me, I misspoke a bit here. There *is* a way the editor could
deduce it -- by seeing what the next editor call is after a
replace_foo() or add_foo(), and using that to figure out whether
set_target_revision() has or hasn't been called since replace/add.

But that would be really going through contortions to deduce something
it could just have handed to it.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:21 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.