develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2013

Re: [perl #117239] Re: [perl #117259] Re: Bleadperlv5.17.9-200-g0e0ab62 breaks MLEHMANN/JSON-XS-2.33.tar.gz

Thread Previous | Thread Next
H.Merijn Brand
March 24, 2013 10:19
Re: [perl #117239] Re: [perl #117259] Re: Bleadperlv5.17.9-200-g0e0ab62 breaks MLEHMANN/JSON-XS-2.33.tar.gz
Message ID:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 04:05:20 +0100, Marc Lehmann <>

snipping all but what I want to comment upon …

> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:34:17AM -0700, Dave Mitchell via RT <> wrote:
> > > > He made a bug report about your code not supporting older compilers
> > > > (admittedly not phrased well), and provided a small patch.
> > > 
> > > There was no patch as has been pointed out before.
> > 
> > It was clearly and unambiguously a patch. It wasn't in diff format, but it
> > was clearly indicating that to make your code more portable,
> He quoted a compiler error message, gave some lines of C code, and some
> cryptic comment with no indication on what to change to what, or what he
> changed into what.

The first post in that thread was what I - as an XS module author -
expect in a ticket. The second post shows that I did some research,
hoping in that could be an entry to a discussion on how to make that
into a patch. More on "patch" below. I have failed in that second
post to express that intention, but the reply took away all my wish
in continuation of that intention as you hopefully understand.

> > you could change  the line
> >
> >     HE *hes [count];
> > to
> [...]
> He wrote no such thing, neither clearly not implied nor even hinting at
> that.

Come on Marc. You care for your software, so you are able to combine an
error message and two lines of code to see the intention.

> While in hindsight he might have intended his mail to be a patch, he
> clearly failed to indicate it.

guilty as charged

> > I have no opinion as to whether it was a good or complete patch, but it
> > was a patch.
> A patch is, at the very least, is a description of changes to apply.

And a test case, which in view of what Vadim noted would have shown
that if it were indeed a patch, it would have been a wrong and
incomplete patch: HE instead of HE* and no free. An ideal patch would
have included a real-life test case showing that the changed code has
or has no influence on the performance. That first post was not a
patch. Rereading it, I don't think I claimed it to be a patch:

 Already seems to be much more portable for that part.

Where do I claim that to be a patch?

> Quoting a compiler error, writing some random lines of C and then claiming
> "Already seems to be much more portable for that part." is not, by any
> stretch, such a description of changes.

Fully agree

> > > Making up lies like these just makes clear to me that you are not honest.

In how (other) people interpret written text, and reflecting their
feelings on those interpretation doesn't make them liars. Dave and me
both try to read past that first impression and are maybe more
optimistic about intentions then you are. Perception is subjective, not
objective. Dave is no liar.

H.Merijn Brand   Perl Monger
using perl5.00307 .. 5.17   porting perl5 on HP-UX, AIX, and openSUSE

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About