Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
