Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 04:40:37PM +0100, demerphq wrote: > On 31 January 2012 16:19, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 04:02:59PM +0100, demerphq wrote: > >> Hash of lines + warning message (format or something). > > > > I first thought "optree - that's a bugger, that's read only" and then > > considered that an interpreter-based hash of script filename and line > > would work. But it still felt hackish. > > > > (Even if I decided that people who had used #line directives to have the > > same line appear more than once were on their own.) > > > > I think you're right with using the format string - I'd not thought of that, > > and it's possible that more than one warning might come from a complex > > construction at different times. (Given that some of the warnings are run- > > time based on the data) > > > > I suspect that "address of current op" is a cheaper thing to store than > > "file plus line". That plus format should be good enough. > > Ah, nice refinement. I hadn't thought of using the opcode address at all. :-) It was the result of thinking "file and line number come from the current COP. We'd have to stringify and concatenate them. But COPs have (to have) unique addresses - why don't we just use that instead. Oh wait, why even bother looking for that - why not use the current OP's address?" Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next