Julian Foad wrote on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 at 15:05 +0100: > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 14:30 +0100, Philip Martin wrote: > > Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes: > > > > > Philip Martin wrote on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 at 11:17 -0000: > > >> How are you going to check adds? During an add the old value is NULL > > >> but must still be checked. > > >> > > > > > > During an add, old_value_p!=NULL and *old_value_p==NULL, and the code > > > checks that present_value==NULL as well. > > > > > > The case old_value_p==NULL means "unspecified" (i.e., just make the > > > change regardless of what's there now). > > > > > > > OK, I didn't read the code carefully enough. > > I didn't spot that either. Please could you add a second "const" in the > function prototype to make it clearer? Otherwise it looks like an > output. > > "const svn_string_t *const *old_p" >
Done in r955306. Also extended the fs-test.c unit test in r955303.
