[darcs-users] darcs patch: making Darcs.Patch.Set comment into haddock

Florent Becker florent.becker at ens-lyon.org
Thu Oct 23 12:45:50 UTC 2008

Florent Becker wrote:
>> Yes.  I'm not sure why you're thinking this could cause a problem.  We
>> should never, however, have a PatchSet of length zero.  (Meaning that
>> the smallest PatchSet should be (NilRL :<: NilRL) or [[]] in list
>> terms.
> I don't think it would be a problem, i was just hunting for implicit
> invariants. So, to make things clear, do we cut after each clean tag?
> [[a b t1 c d e t2][f g t3] [h i]] and [[a b t1 c d e t2][f g t3 h i]]
> represent the same repository, don't they? Is the difference between
> them meaningful? Are they both likely to come up?
One more question: do we have the guarantee that tags are as far right as
possible? That is, in my example, is [[a *t1* *b* c d e t2][f g t3 h i]] a
correct PatchSet (or similarly, [[a b t1 c d *t2*] [*e* f g t3 h i]])? It
seems having that kind of PatchSet changes the semantics of
Darcs.Match.get_matching_tag. If we don't have these PatchSets, the
SealedPatchSet returned by get_matching_tag represents what we get by
pulling all matching tags from a repo. Otherwise, there might be some more
patches. So, which is the semantics of PatchSet on that point, and the one
of get_matching_tag?


More information about the darcs-users mailing list