[ditz-talk] Operator Arguments
nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com
Tue Jun 17 15:01:26 EDT 2008
Excerpts from Daniel Hackney's message of Tue Jun 17 03:03:21 +0200 2008:
> William Morgan <wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net> wrote:
> > > 1. Would a single patch of the whole change, rebased off of the
> > > current head be best, or would a patch for each operator be
> > > preferred?
> > A patch for each logical set of changes, preferrably with each
> > resulting in a working system. (To the extent that it's not overly
> > cumbersome.)
> I don't know how much that would be possible, since I am rewriting how
> arguments are handed to the operators, which is pretty invasive. Short
> of writing a compatibility layer to allow either method of argument
> parsing to be used (which I think is a waste of time), I think the best
> way forward is just to squash the whole thing into a single commit and
> rebase off of the current master (or edge).
> > > 2. Is it still a good idea to have all of the operators in the same
> > > big file, or could I break them out into one file per operation (in
> > > a subdirectory most likely)?
> > I'd like to keep small ones in one file, but larger ones could be
> > broken out.
> Since there is the "short circuit" functionality of the `--commands'
> argument, it may make sense to have a small file with the information
> about the commands and then all of the code separate. Then again, since
> the amount of time it takes to parse some extra classes is probably
> pretty minimal, worrying too much about this is probably a waste of
I don't think that's a waste of effort, this option is called by the shell to
ask for completion, so hitting <TAB> should answer pretty fast, and even with
my fast machine the difference is real.
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ditz-talk