Hi,

1 patch for repository http://darcs.net/releases/branch-2.5:

this is another patch that has on effect on the user interface of darcs, but
makes the DarcsLib API more useful.

Again, I’d be grateful if this would make it into 2.5, or at least one of the
point releases following 2.5.

Thanks,
Joachim

PS: I took the liberty to import DarcsCommand(..) everywhere, even when before
the field accessors were named explicitly. The (..)-variant was far more
common, so this is more consistent.


Thu Sep 16 20:06:43 CEST 2010  Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de>
  * Add commandProgramName field to DarcsCommand
  In order to make the command handling more generic, the name of the program
  (the executable) is now a field of DarcsCommand. It is used by the functions
  which generate the help output.

Attachments

• add-commandprogramname-field-to-darcscommand.dpatch
• unnamed

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 18:11:17 +0000, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>  subusage :: DarcsCommand -> String
>  subusage super =
>      (usageInfo
> - -     ("Usage: darcs "++commandName super++" SUBCOMMAND ... " ++
> +     ("Usage: " ++ commandProgramName super ++ " "++commandName super++" SUBCOMMAND ... " ++

Quick screening question.  Wouldn't it be simpler for subusage
to have access to the result of System.Environment.getProgramName?

-- 
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
For a faster response, try +44 (0)1273 64 2905 or
xmpp:kowey@jabber.fr (Jabber or Google Talk only)

Hi,

Am Freitag, den 17.09.2010, 08:07 +0000 schrieb Eric Kow:
> Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net> added the comment:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 18:11:17 +0000, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> >  subusage :: DarcsCommand -> String
> >  subusage super =
> >      (usageInfo
> > - -     ("Usage: darcs "++commandName super++" SUBCOMMAND ... " ++
> > +     ("Usage: " ++ commandProgramName super ++ " "++commandName super++" SUBCOMMAND ... " ++
> 
> Quick screening question.  Wouldn't it be simpler for subusage
> to have access to the result of System.Environment.getProgramName?

no, because
 a) It is in IO
 b) There might be reasons to toss around commands for other programs.
Assume you would, for some reason, have a suite of darcs related
programs, and want to generate manpages for all of them in one place.
Then being able to handle DarcsCommands of different executables would
help.

b) is quite hypothetical, but a) is a selling point IMHO :-)

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
  mail: mail@joachim-breitner.de | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Key: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 08:10:40 +0000, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Quick screening question.  Wouldn't it be simpler for subusage
> > to have access to the result of System.Environment.getProgramName?
> 
> no, because
>  a) It is in IO

I was going to say "what if it accepted just a String argument?"
but I imagine you already thought of that and decided that there
are uses of subusage which are far enough from IO that feeding it
getProgramName would be problematic.

>  b) There might be reasons to toss around commands for other programs.
> Assume you would, for some reason, have a suite of darcs related
> programs, and want to generate manpages for all of them in one place.
> Then being able to handle DarcsCommands of different executables would
> help.

Not particularly convinced, but I'm going to accept this patch anyway.

Thanks!

-- 
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
For a faster response, try +44 (0)1273 64 2905 or
xmpp:kowey@jabber.fr (Jabber or Google Talk only)

This patch bundle (with 1 patches) was just applied to the repository http://darcs.net/.
This message was brought to you by DarcsWatch
http://darcswatch.nomeata.de/repo_http:__darcs.net_.html#bundle-2d29156bd236cf67bf0d913876de4abc0ca26d1f

Reinier, is it ok for this to go into 2.5? I know it's against the strict 
policy but it does seem like a small change that'd be quite valuable.

It's not in darcs 2.5 RC 1 because I can't see in an instant that it's
completely innocent. But it can go into a 2.5.1 of course.

This patch bundle (with 1 patches) was just applied to the repository http://darcs.net/reviewed.
This message was brought to you by DarcsWatch
http://darcswatch.nomeata.de/repo_http:__darcs.net_reviewed.html#bundle-2d29156bd236cf67bf0d913876de4abc0ca26d1f