Branko ÄŒibej wrote:
> Looking back, it strikes me that
> limit should be an svn_revnum_t, because it represents the same range of
> values.
It should not be an "svn_revnum_t", because "Number of revisions" is not the
same concept as "Revision number". It would be reasonable to argue that
"limit" should be an integer big enough to hold the values of "svn_revnum_t"
(which is not the case at the moment) so that one can request any desired
amount of the whole log history. On the other hand it would be reasonable to
argue that "limit" does _not_ have to cover that range because while revision
numbers might become huge, the number of revisions involved in any given log
history request will generally remain much smaller than the total number of
revisions in the repository, and it is unlikely to be practically useful to
request a huge yet limited log.
> So... I'm withdrawing my objection. Let's change the thing to signed,
Reverted r11162 in r11909. I hope that wasn't rude ... maybe I should have
waited for Garrett Rooney's approval, as he made the original commit. Garrett,
I hope you don't mind.
> and by all means fix that atoi.
Certainly it would be nice to fix it, but that's "only" an implementation bug.
I'm concentrating on the API at the moment.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 15 17:38:34 2004