Julian Foad wrote on Fri, May 01, 2015 at 14:24:06 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:30:39 +0100:
> > > ...
> > As an alternative, element ids could be made unique only throughout
> > their branch and all branches that are copy-wise-descendants of the
>
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:30:39 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote (quoting two emails combined):
> > Okay. So what you're saying so far is that the data model will have
> > distinct concepts for "copying" and "branching".
>
> Yup.
>
> > Presumably [...] some high-level operations
>
Daniel Shahaf wrote (quoting two emails combined):
> Okay. So what you're saying so far is that the data model will have
> distinct concepts for "copying" and "branching".
Yup.
> Presumably [...] some high-level operations
> will behave differently if the object operated upon is a branch compare
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 22:24:36 +:
> Julian Foad wrote on Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 20:58:34 +0100:
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Julian Foad wrote:
> > >> On 17 April 2015, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > I suppose the answer depends on the properties, i.e., "interface", of
> > > a
Julian Foad wrote on Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 20:58:34 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote:
> >> On 17 April 2015, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
...
> > By the way, what's the relation between the "move tracking" part of the
> > work and the "first-class branches" part? I think move-tracking is
Responding on-list to some feedback Daniel gave off-list (quoted with
his permission).
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> On 17 April 2015, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>
>>> 0. As I said on IRC, even before diving into the implementation, I think
>>> it's more important to document the problem
6 matches
Mail list logo
