Re: [Monotone-devel] rfc on h: selector behavior

[Emile Snyder]

On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 09:44 +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> In message <address@hidden> on Thu, 13 Oct 2005 00:15:41 -0700, Emile Snyder 
> <address@hidden> said:
> 
> emile> [...] Also, that it's not clear whether h:* should mean
> emile> 
> emile> erase_ancestors(b:*)
> emile> or
> emile> union (erase_ancestors(b:b1), erase_ancestors(b:b2), ...)
> emile> 
> emile> Any opinions?
> 
> Actually, this transends to any globbing pattern.  After all, does
> h:com.circus.* mean `erase_ancestors(b:com.circus.*' or
> `union(erase_ancestors(b:com.circus.b1),
> erase_ancestors(b:com.circus.b2), ...)'?

Sorry, yes, I didn't mean to imply that it was a special problem with
'*', just saving typing.

For what it's worth, my expectation as a user would be the
union(heads(b1), heads(b2), ...), ie., interpret h:branchglob to mean
"heads of the specified branches"

I lean this way because of situations like this: you have A -> B -> C
where A and B are on branch rootb and C is on childb, then
erase_ancestors(*) gives C, while
union(erase_ancestors(rootb), erase_ancestors(childb)) gives {B, C}

> Tough question, and I'm not sure I've the answer...

Not sure I do either.

thanks for the feedback,
-emile

> Cheers,
> Richard
> 
> -----
> Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
> See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.
>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part