>> Will be better to change FixedIntegerArray to implement elements by
>> calling get_integer? And then use get_integer in all relevant places
>> in ResizableIntegerArray? Looks more clear to me to get the value with
>> get_integer and set it with set_integer_native.
>
> Yes, that's definitely bett
On Monday 22 September 2008 13:01:35 NotFound wrote:
> After some looking: other functions on this pmc uses elements, that is
> implemented in the parent, FixedIntegerArray. FixedIntegerArray
> implements get_integer by calling elements, so looks like elements is
> the 'boss'.
>
> Will be better
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:34 AM, NotFound <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> +=item C
>>> +
>>> +Removes the element at C.
>>> +
>>> +=cut
>>> +
>>> +*/
>>> +
>>> +VTABLE void delete_keyed_int(INTVAL key) {
>>> +INTVAL size = PMC_int_val(SELF);
>>
>> With the use of the set_integer_native
NotFound wrote:
+=item C
+
+Removes the element at C.
+
+=cut
+
+*/
+
+VTABLE void delete_keyed_int(INTVAL key) {
+INTVAL size = PMC_int_val(SELF);
With the use of the set_integer_native entry later, this should probably be:
INTVAL size = SELF.get_integer();
I borrowed it f
>> +=item C
>> +
>> +Removes the element at C.
>> +
>> +=cut
>> +
>> +*/
>> +
>> +VTABLE void delete_keyed_int(INTVAL key) {
>> +INTVAL size = PMC_int_val(SELF);
>
> With the use of the set_integer_native entry later, this should probably be:
>
>INTVAL size = SELF.get_integer();
On Sunday 21 September 2008 14:00:59 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Log:
> add delete_keyed_int to resizableintegerarray
>
> --- trunk/src/pmc/resizableintegerarray.pmc (original)
> +++ trunk/src/pmc/resizableintegerarray.pmc Sun Sep 21 14:00:58 2008
> @@ -206,6 +206,24 @@
> mem_sys_m
