On 27.06.2013 19:33, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Philip Martin wrote on Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 17:47:54 +0100:
>> Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> writes:
>>> My own answer to "how to change Ev2 to enable representing rotate(A,A/B/C)":
>>> I think the above means we have to modify move() to use SRC arguments
>>> relative to the start state of the edited tree, rather than to its
>>> current state.
>>> If we do that, we could represent your commit as:
>>> mv(A/B/C, A); mv(A/B, A/B); mv(A, A/B/C);.
>>> While we're making changes, I wonder if we should nuke rotate(). I have
>>> several reasons:
>> I've been thinking of that as well. rotate was not it the first draft
>> of Ev2, it was added when I asked how to order the moves in a swap.
>> You have ordered these "start state" moves by depth order of the
>> destination, which seems reasonable. I think that implies that the
>> destination refers to the current state which is the same as the final
> +1. The current state == the final state due to the Once Rule: every
> node is the destination of exactly one editor call.
That's not what the Once Rule says; and if you think about it, it's
impossible unless move and copy get contents/props arguments just like
add and alter.
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
Received on 2013-06-27 20:14:00 CEST