Re: Letting tools partially resolve conflicts in a file

>
> Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The solution I had in mind for letting merge tools communicate partial
> > resolution was to let them take 3 inputs (as today) and produce 3
> > outputs (perhaps by overwriting its 3 inputs). That way they can leave
> > conflicts in a conflict-marker-agnostic way. ...
> >
> > Correct. My team at work hopes to create a language-aware mergetool.
> > The "#includes and imports" I mentioned is just one case that such a
> > tool could resolve. Hopefully it can also figure out cases like where
> > both sides modify an array (on a single line), or where an expression
> > is modified on one side and re-wrapped on the other. The thing is that
> > it will obviously not be able to handle *all* conflicts, so we want to
> > leave remaining conflicts for the user, so that's where this idea
> > comes in. I don't foresee having more than one such tool in the chain
> > before the user gets involved.
>
> Hmph, OK, so the part I guessed that more than one such tools are
> chained together was incorrect.  I do not find it too implausible to
> wish to first let the "include/import" tool to clean up the fallout
> of renaming the include/module files this source depends on, and
> then let the "renamed variable" tool to handle the fallout of
> renaming a local variable in a file in this source file, in this
> order or the other way around.  It may be a tall order to write a
> tool that can handle *all* coflicts, but it would be a nice future
> to see that multiple tools, each of which specializing one corner of
> its own, work well together.