Re: Points of focus

2004-04-01 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *) Fix hash.c. (Though it may not be broken. Signs are good, though) Adam Thomason (zhanks) sent me a precise description of one hash bug. It occured during freezing big hashes--fixed. leo

Re: Points of focus

2004-03-31 Thread Matt Fowles
All~ There was some discussion a while ago about having a whole class of array pmc, some for each type as well as some that auto expand and others that don't. I am about to go on a trip and will thus have time on the plane to implement such things; however, I do not recall any official decisi

Re: Points of focus

2004-03-31 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:43 PM +0100 3/31/04, Jens Rieks wrote: Hi, On Wednesday 31 March 2004 20:42, Dan Sugalski wrote: *) Get continuations all nailed down. There seems to be some lingering problems in the system I'd like identified with tests and fixed *) Get lexical pad operations spec'd out and possibly wo

Re: Points of focus

2004-03-31 Thread Jens Rieks
Hi, On Wednesday 31 March 2004 20:42, Dan Sugalski wrote: > *) Get continuations all nailed down. There seems to be some > lingering problems in the system I'd like identified with tests and > fixed > *) Get lexical pad operations spec'd out and possibly working > *) Fix hash.c. (Though it may not

Re: Points of focus

2004-03-31 Thread Jens Rieks
Hi, On Wednesday 31 March 2004 23:27, Tim Bunce wrote: > Is IMCC method call syntax spec'd, implemented, and reasonably stable? I think yes. But the method (and sub) declaration stuff needs a bit work. For example, you can not declare a "new" or "end" method at the moment. > Tim. jens

Re: Points of focus

2004-03-31 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:27 PM +0100 3/31/04, Tim Bunce wrote: On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:42:30PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: Or something equally manager-speaky. It's time to be looking towards a 0.1.1 release. There's been some overhaul of the internals and fleshing out of some features, so I think we're well-w

Re: Points of focus

2004-03-31 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:59 PM +0200 3/31/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Or something equally manager-speaky. Ok all ... *) Fix hash.c. (Though it may not be broken. Signs are good, though) which indications do you have that something is broken here? I'm not sure, but folks have

Re: Points of focus

2004-03-31 Thread Tim Bunce
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:42:30PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Or something equally manager-speaky. > > It's time to be looking towards a 0.1.1 release. There's been some > overhaul of the internals and fleshing out of some features, so I > think we're well-warranted to be thinking about anothe

Re: Points of focus

2004-03-31 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or something equally manager-speaky. Ok all ... > *) Fix hash.c. (Though it may not be broken. Signs are good, though) which indications do you have that something is broken here? leo

Points of focus

2004-03-31 Thread Dan Sugalski
Or something equally manager-speaky. It's time to be looking towards a 0.1.1 release. There's been some overhaul of the internals and fleshing out of some features, so I think we're well-warranted to be thinking about another point release. What I'd like to do this time is: *) Get continuation