[C++-sig] Re: New indexing suite nearing review readiness

[Raoul Gough]

"Joel de Guzman" <joel at boost-consulting.com> writes:

> Raoul Gough <RaoulGough at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Joel de Guzman" <joel at boost-consulting.com> writes:
>
>>> I have no objections with that. I think it's a good idea to put it
>>> in the CVS.  How about a branch? Then when things settle down to a
>>> stable state, we merge it to the HEAD?
>> 
>> Sounds like a great idea to me. I've never created a branch in CVS
>> before, so I think I'll try it out in the sandbox first. Any advice on
>> putting a *new* file on a branch, so it doesn't immediately appear on
>> HEAD?
>
> Pardon me but I don't quite understand what you mean. AFAIK, if you
> place a new file on a branch, it doesn't immediately appear on HEAD
> unless you merge it. 

My fault - I don't know anything about creating branches. IIUC, I
create the branch using tag -b, and must then switch my working
directory to that branch using update -r. After that, any "add" that I
do seems to pick up the branch automatically (presumably using the
CVS/Tag file). I've just been trying this out in boost-sandbox.

[snip]
>> Well, the only trouble is that the interface is different. From the
>> activity in this group, there are already a number of people using the
>> existing code, so I was thinking about providing a transition
>> period. By the sounds of it, you would prefer a clean break? I suppose
>> people can always use the older versions from CVS if they really have
>> to.
>
> I don't think the new interface is too great a departure from the
> original, is it?  Anyway, would it be possible to have a transition
> API that mimics the old interface?

OK. Thinking about this, the only real problem is the proxy support -
since it now relies on an external "container adapter", the suite
can't provide proxying internally. It might be possible to use
something like the pointer mapping in the existing proxy code to
inject a container proxy in place of the plain container. It would be
less work for me *not* to do this, of course. How valuable would this
compatibility be?

-- 
Raoul Gough.
(setq dabbrev-case-fold-search nil)