develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2001

Re: [Fwd: Scoping of %^H still broken in both perl@8269 and perl-5.6.1-TRIAL1]

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Jarkko Hietaniemi
Date:
January 5, 2001 05:08
Subject:
Re: [Fwd: Scoping of %^H still broken in both perl@8269 and perl-5.6.1-TRIAL1]
Message ID:
20010105070747.A8075@chaos.wustl.edu
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:41:58AM +0000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Sorry if this is a repeat - I've sent this twice now without seeing it
> appear on p5p.

Pleasr resubmit the patch, yes, please.

> Alan Burlison
> From: Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@uk.sun.com>
> Subject: Scoping of %^H still broken in both perl@8269 and perl-5.6.1-TRIAL1
> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:31:29 +0000
> Message-ID: <3A5345D1.1BD74894@uk.sun.com>
> To: perlbug@perl.org, jhi@iki.fi, gsar@activestate.com
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.9 sun4u)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> 
> Back in July last year I submitted a patch to fix the scoping of %^H -
> see the thread beginning at
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-07/msg00346.html. 
> After much discussion Sarathay's last word
> (http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-07/msg00398.html)
> was this:
> 
> > I think the newHVhv() issue should be fixed as you suggested.  The
> > existing semantic of aliasing the values between the two hashes
> > doesn't make much sense to me as far as practical applicability goes.
> > We can always keep references in the hash to share values between
> > hashes.
> 
> However the patch never seemed to make it in to either the maintenance
> or development versions.  Should I resubmit it?
> 
> -- 
> Alan Burlison


-- 
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
        # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
        # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About