Responses

master
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~willu/ 2009-05-20 21:30:16 -04:00 committed by Joey Hess
parent f7ded1174d
commit 7b24072546
1 changed files with 31 additions and 1 deletions

View File

@ -196,21 +196,39 @@ account all comments above (which doesn't mean it is above reproach :) ). --[[W
> Very belated code review of last version of the patch: > Very belated code review of last version of the patch:
> >
> * `is_globlist` is no longer needed > * `is_globlist` is no longer needed
>> Good :)
> * I don't understand why the pagespec match regexp is changed > * I don't understand why the pagespec match regexp is changed
> from having flags `igx` to `ixgs`. Don't see why you > from having flags `igx` to `ixgs`. Don't see why you
> want `.` to match '\n` in it, and don't see any `.` in the regexp > want `.` to match '\n` in it, and don't see any `.` in the regexp
> anyway? > anyway?
>> Because you have to define all the named pagespecs in the pagespec, you sometimes end up with very long pagespecs. I found it useful to split them over multiple lines. That didn't work at one point and I added the 's' to make it work. I may have further altered the regex since then to make the 's' redundant. Remove it and see if multi-line pagespecs still work. :)
> * Some changes of `@_` to `%params` in `pagespec_makeperl` do not > * Some changes of `@_` to `%params` in `pagespec_makeperl` do not
> make sense to me. I don't see where \%params is defined and populated, > make sense to me. I don't see where \%params is defined and populated,
> except with `\$params{specFunc}`. > except with `\$params{specFunc}`.
>> I'm not a perl hacker. This was a mighty battle for me to get going. There is probably some battlefield carnage from my early struggles learning perl left here.
>> Part of this is that @_ / @params already existed as a way of passing in extra parameters. I didn't want to pollute that top level namespace - just at my own parameter (a hash) which contained the data I needed.
> * Seems that the only reason `match_glob` has to check for `~` is > * Seems that the only reason `match_glob` has to check for `~` is
> because when a named spec appears in a pagespec, it is translated > because when a named spec appears in a pagespec, it is translated
> to `match_glob("~foo")`. If, instead, `pagespec_makeperl` checked > to `match_glob("~foo")`. If, instead, `pagespec_makeperl` checked
> for named specs, it could convert them into `check_named_spec("foo")` > for named specs, it could convert them into `check_named_spec("foo")`
> and avoid that ugliness. > and avoid that ugliness.
>> Yeah - I wanted to make named specs syntactically different on my first pass. You are right in that this could be made a fallback - named specs always override pagenames.
> * The changes to `match_link` seem either unecessary, or incomplete. > * The changes to `match_link` seem either unecessary, or incomplete.
> Shouldn't it check for named specs and call > Shouldn't it check for named specs and call
> `check_named_spec_existential`? > `check_named_spec_existential`?
>> An earlier version did. Then I realised it wasn't actually needed in that case - match_link() already included a loop that was like a type of existential matching. Each time through the loop it would
>> call match_glob(). match_glob() in turn will handle the named spec. I tested this version briefly and it seemed to work. I remember looking at this again later and wondering if I had mis-understood
>> some of the logic in match_link(), which might mean there are cases where you would need an explicit call to check_named_spec_existential() - I never checked it properly after having that thought.
> * Generally, the need to modify `match_*` functions so that they > * Generally, the need to modify `match_*` functions so that they
> check for and handle named pagespecs seems suboptimal, if > check for and handle named pagespecs seems suboptimal, if
> only because there might be others people may want to use named > only because there might be others people may want to use named
@ -221,13 +239,25 @@ account all comments above (which doesn't mean it is above reproach :) ). --[[W
> that is not a page name at all, and it could be weird > that is not a page name at all, and it could be weird
> if such a parameter were accidentially interpreted as a named > if such a parameter were accidentially interpreted as a named
> pagespec. (But, that seems unlikely to happen.) > pagespec. (But, that seems unlikely to happen.)
>> Possibly. I'm not sure which I prefer between the current solution and that one. Each have advantages and disadvantages.
>> It really isn't much code for the match functions to add a call to check_named_spec_existential().
> * I need to check if your trick to avoid infinite recursion > * I need to check if your trick to avoid infinite recursion
> works if there are two named specs that recursively > works if there are two named specs that recursively
> call one-another. I suspect it does, but will test this > call one-another. I suspect it does, but will test this
> myself.. > myself..
>
>> It worked for me. :)
> --[[Joey]] > --[[Joey]]
>> There is one issue that I've been thinking about that I haven't raised anywhere (or checked myself), and that is how this all interacts with page dependencies.
>> Firstly, I'm not sure anymore that the `pagespec_merge` function will continue to work in all cases. Secondly, it seems that there are two types of dependency, and ikiwiki
>> currently only handles one of them. The first type is "Rebuild this page when any of these other pages changes" - ikiwiki handles this. The second type is "rebuild this page when
>> set of pages referred to by this pagespec changes" - ikiwiki doesn't seem to handle this. I suspect that named pagespecs would make that second type of dependency more
>> important. I'll try to come up with a good example. -- [[Will]]
---- ----
diff --git a/IkiWiki.pm b/IkiWiki.pm diff --git a/IkiWiki.pm b/IkiWiki.pm