If you actually print that out without the backslashing (i.e. \0a is a
newline), you'll get an indented view of the skel. However, I'm
thinking the indentation probably isn't worth it. Wouldn't you rather
see
(fulltext ((dir ()) ()))
?
Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
> Wow, this is amazing. Here's a printout of the repos right after
> running fs-test #6, the one which creates an empty file:
>
> --------------------------
> VERSION=2
> format=print
> type=btree
> HEADER=END
> 0.0
> (\0a fulltext \0a (\0a (\0a dir \0a (\0a )\0a )\0a (\0a )\0a )\0a)
> 0.1
> (\0a fulltext \0a (\0a (\0a dir \0a (\0a )\0a (\0a mutable \0a 0\0a\0a )\0a )\0a (\0a (\0a beer.txt \0a 3\0a1.1\0a )\0a )\0a )\0a)
> 1.1
> (\0a fulltext \0a (\0a (\0a file \0a (\0a )\0a (\0a mutable \0a 3\0a0.1\0a )\0a )\0a 0\0a\0a )\0a)
> DATA=END
> ---------------------------
>
> Notice node-rev 0.0 is a dir with no mutable flag, and no dirents.
> This is the "root" node made when the fs is created.
>
> Notice that 0.1 is the root of the first transaction: it's a clone of
> the root node. How can we tell?
>
> * You can tell they're both revisions of node 0, because they're
> both named "0.*".
>
> * The only difference between 0.0 and 0.1 is that the the latter has
> the "mutable" flag.
>
> And finally, notice our new empty file -- node 1. It's of type
> "file", has the mutable flag (which points to parent 0.1), and has no
> content.
>
> Whee!
>
>
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:24 2006