Re: Revision Arithmetic

Christopher Ness <chris@nesser.org> writes:
> That issue seems to want the arithmetic to be on changes, and not
> revision numbers.
>
> I plan to do revision arithmetic, addition and subtraction of revision
> numbers passed in as arguments as Karl said near Christmas 2004. Not
> changes since this would overload the meaning of the -r flag.
>
> I plan to extend the argument parsing to look for something like:
> ([0-9][0-9+-]*)*[0-9]+
> where the revision argument must start and end with a number and can
> have addition or subtraction chars but not as the first or last char.
>
> Once this is verified, evaluate the arithmetic and pass the evaluated
> revision number on.
>
> There is no need for brackets to describe order of operations since
> addition and subtraction are associative.
>
> Anybody see a problem?
>
> I have designed this to allow: -r1000-1
> and disallow: -r-1+1000
>
> Is this acceptable? I would think the common use case would be N-x for
> a previous revision.

I don't see a problem with this. I got thrown by the regexp until I
remembered that you were intentionally supporting associativity.

I'll resist the temptation to urge support for Reverse Polish Notation :-).

-Karl

-- 
www.collab.net  <>  CollabNet  |  Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org