Re: redundant path functions

2010-03-31 Thread Julian Foad
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 08:15 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Stefan Sperling wrote: > > I too remember being confused as to which interface I should be using. > > And I think having is_ancestor not be the reverse of is_child is a bad idea. > > We'll likely find mis-use of either interface in the c

Re: redundant path functions

2010-03-31 Thread C. Michael Pilato
Stefan Sperling wrote: > I too remember being confused as to which interface I should be using. > And I think having is_ancestor not be the reverse of is_child is a bad idea. > We'll likely find mis-use of either interface in the code base, where > the author didn't realise the subtle semantics of

Re: redundant path functions

2010-03-31 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:34:35AM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] > > Sent: woensdag 31 maart 2010 2:47 > > To: dev@subversion.apache.org > > Subject: redundant path functions > &

RE: redundant path functions

2010-03-31 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] > Sent: woensdag 31 maart 2010 2:47 > To: dev@subversion.apache.org > Subject: redundant path functions > > The following functions seem very redundant. Because each is slightly > different,

redundant path functions

2010-03-30 Thread Greg Stein
The following functions seem very redundant. Because each is slightly different, I always have to compare/contrast them to isolate their differences. It would be much better if we could pick JUST ONE, and run with that: svn_*_is_child() svn_*_is_ancestor() svn_*_skip_ancestor() I do realize that