[darcs-users] ratification (haskell_policy / hlint)
Trent W. Buck
twb at cybersource.com.au
Thu Sep 3 02:11:38 UTC 2009
Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> writes:
> Granularity: We've touched on the fact that the 'ignore' mechanism does
> not catch cases where a forbidden function is used more than once in a
> given function.
Wouldn't that mean your function is too big? ;-)
> The explicit ratification mechanism would force us to ratify each and
> every use.
It also means that the ratification happens in the same file, rather
than in an "ignore" file that's hidden away in test/. That probably
means a Ratify.foo approach is less likely to get out of sync.
> Transparency: Explicit ratification is more transparent; you get
> something baked right into the source file "yes, this is a banned
> function, but we are using it because it's acceptable in this specific
I guess that's the same thing (I should read the whole post before I
start to reply...)
> I'd like this to be settled by consensus if possible. But you know
> where I stand if this keeps dragging out.
I don't much like either approach for ratification, but I would prefer
EITHER to doing nothing (i.e. keeping the old haskell_policy).
More information about the darcs-users