At Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:59:11 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:28:58AM -0700, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
At Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:48:03 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
I've just had a quick read of http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/prakash92undoing.html AFAICS this only really deals with the case where there are no conflicts, and doesn't talk about merging.
AFAIK, the papers do not talking about merging.
They cover conflicts in the case where you want to remove/reorder an older patch which conflicts with a newer one.
Only in the case where you have already undone the newer one, and thus can just remove both the new patch and its inverse, I thought.
That sounds right to me.
Since I don't know the darcs internals or patch theory, I don't have a concept of how much is still missing
The difficult part is still missing :-)
Right, but is the difficulty in thinking up the ideas and figuring out solutions to the problems ? Or is the implementation also neccessarily very large and complex (even if implemented in my toy code which only has two operations: 'insert' and 'delete') I guess the best question is, how far from reality is the theory of patches as written in the darcs manual: http://darcs.net/manual/node8.html Is the additional complexity/difficulty in actually implementing functions like unwind, or is there just a bunch more theory missing from that page? Would a function like unwind be easier to implement, if it was done in my toy setting, and if I did not care about efficiency and computational complexity? thanks! j.