Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2010
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Ben Morrow wrote: > Quoth nick@ccl4.org (Nicholas Clark): > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 04:15:37PM -0700, Ben Morrow wrote: > > > > > These patches record whether a given stack frame is for a function or a > > > method call, by adding a new OPpENTERSUB_PRIVATE bit. I need this for > > > PRE and POST blocks, which have different behaviour depending on whether > > > a sub is called as a method or not. > > > > Aaargh. Attached patches make it easy (or easier) to do some things, but > > really damn hard to do others. I can't even reliably get a list of > > attachments. > > Is there anything I could have done differently that would make this > easier? Pushed a branch to github? (My understanding was that it is > easier to apply from a mail with am than to add a remote and pull from > there... I suppose 'both' is always an option.) Sorry for the delay in replying. No, there wasn't anything that I can see that would be easier (and there still isn't). I didn't intended to write a "You're wrong, and I'm not telling you why" response, although I guess I wasn't clear that I was stuck. > > > I'm not entirely sure about the parts of this which touch B: it's in > > > ext/, so I presume it's not dual-life, but there seem to be lots of > > > dual-life-ish bits of code in there. I haven't made any attempt to > > > preserve compat with older perls; is this wrong? > > > > Historically, when I was doing maint releases of 5.8.x, I was trying to keep > > one codebase, rather than forking B in maint-5.8 (and subsequently forking > > 3 ways for blead, maint-5.10 and maint-5.8). IIRC There was also a point > > when I was (mistakenly) assuming it was actually dual-lived, and being > > sufficiently defensive to cope with that. > > So, given the current maint policy (i.e. there's no chance of this going > into any maint), I don't need to worry about it? No, not really. Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next