[darcs-users] [patch65] remove commutex

[Jason Dagit]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh at earth.li> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Jason Dagit wrote:
>
>  On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh at earth.li>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Jason Dagit wrote:
>>>
>>>  toCommute and fromCommute are not the best function names, but I think
>>>
>>>> a future refactor can get rid of both of them or give them better
>>>> names.  I've also tried to make their types sufficiently general such
>>>> that they may be able to transform the type of commuteFL, although I
>>>> haven't actually tried it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A little while ago I started adding some general infrastructure for
>>> handling commutes between different types of patches in
>>> Darcs.Patch.Permutations - in particular there's
>>>
>>> type CommuteFn p1 p2 = FORALL(x y) (p1 :> p2) C(x y) -> Maybe ((p2 :> p1)
>>> C(x y))
>>>
>>> I think it would make sense to combine this stuff with your toCommute and
>>> fromCommute code, and put it in an appropriate module (perhaps a new
>>> one).
>>>
>>>
>> Ganesh,
>>
>> It's unclear to me:  Were you going to apply this?  I see it hasn't made
>> it
>> into darcs.net yet, and the status is "amend-requested"
>>
>
> it's "review-in-progress" - I've had a quick look but not finished yet.


Oh, maybe I misremembered it.  I checked the status then hopped on transit
where I wrote the email (without access to the tracker).


>
>
>  but I thought you
>> were commenting on future work above.  Did you feel that I need to include
>> a
>> usage of CommuteFn at the same time?
>>
>
> No, but I didn't really like the toCommute/fromCommute names at all, so was
> erring towards asking that they be changed before it's applied. Hadn't
> thought of good alternatives yet which is part of the reason I haven't
> finished the review yet.


I struggled with the names too.  They transform the argument tuples.
Similar to curry/uncurry.  So the better names might be, forwardCommute and
reverseCommute.  Or, toForwardCommute/toReverseCommute, but those are
getting pretty long.

I think eventually we can make all the tuples go the same way.  Which would
probably reduce some duplication.  Having a 'flip' function for this might
be nice too.  Just some ideas to help you get unstuck on this.

Thanks,
Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20091124/bb7e1713/attachment.htm>