On Tue, 15 May 2007, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
> 2007/5/15, Daniel Rall <email@example.com>:
> >> >- def proplist(target, rev=nil, peg_rev=nil, recurse=true, &block)
> >> >+ def proplist(target, rev=nil, peg_rev=nil,
> >> >depth=Core::DEPTH_INFINITY, &block)
> >> We can use depth=nil for the same propose. (see
> >> svn_swig_rb_to_depth()) Could you use nil instead of
> >> Svn::Core::DEPTH_INFINITY and commit this patch?
> >FWIW, I like the use of an explicit value, as it makes the code more
> >easy to understand.
> We use depth=nil as default value in other methods.
> depth=nil means "we use default depth value" and the default
> depth value is used all depth parameter. I think using depth=nil
> for all methods is more understandable rather than using
> depth=Core::DEPTH_INFINITY only for Svn::Client#proplist.
Sure, I understand that nil equates to "use the default" -- that's a
common pattern. I don't see how nil can be claimed as more
comprehensible than an explicit value, however, when the latter is
self-documenting, and the former isn't documented at all in the
Looks like you made a change in r25016 to support use of symbols in
the underlying implementation?
Received on Tue May 15 03:47:18 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored