comment

1 files changed, 21 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/todo/pull_request:_patch_Apt.buildDep_to_only_proceed_if_installable/comment_7_9c45f473cbc432a32bd64bbbf048fae4._comment b/doc/todo/pull_request:_patch_Apt.buildDep_to_only_proceed_if_installable/comment_7_9c45f473cbc432a32bd64bbbf048fae4._comment
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e2611fd5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/todo/pull_request:_patch_Apt.buildDep_to_only_proceed_if_installable/comment_7_9c45f473cbc432a32bd64bbbf048fae4._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 7"""
+ date="2015-12-02T16:10:34Z"
+ content="""
+The two combinators are indeed very similar. The reason I wrote
+changesFile the way I did is that that allows it to be applied repeatedly
+when a property can change any of several files.
+
+	trivial someprop
+		`changesFile` "foo"
+		`changesFile` "bar"
+
+That seems fairly likely to come up, while it would be unusual for a
+property to have to change multiple files at once to be considered
+to make a change at all, which is what multiple applications of
+`noChangeIfUnchanged` leads to.
+
+But neither combinator causes apt's output to not be displayed,
+which is what I thought we were talking about.
+"""]]