stm ready (was Re: More review of current stm branch code)

2006-08-15 Thread Chip Salzenberg
So, given the below, looks like we've got everything sewn up and the long-awaited day of the STM merge is upon us. Charles, care to do the honors? On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:31:38PM -0400, Charles Reiss wrote: > On 8/15/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:

Re: More review of current stm branch code

2006-08-15 Thread Charles Reiss
On 8/15/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:14:52PM -0400, Charles Reiss wrote: > I wrote: [snip] > >It also does not allow .pmc files to overide the default idea of > >whether a vtable method is read-only. > > This remains unresolved though I'm not certain

Re: More review of current stm branch code

2006-08-15 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:14:52PM -0400, Charles Reiss wrote: > I wrote: > >The read-only variant generation currently does not handle NCI methods > >at all. There are number of implementation options; the best I can > >think of is to override findmethod (in the read-only type) to check > >for a p

Re: More review of current stm branch code

2006-08-15 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 04:38:59PM -0400, Charles Reiss wrote: > On 8/10/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > /* XXX is it okay to combine flatten/slurpy into one flag? */ > > > > The answer is "No": "flat" is an output flag, "slurpy_array" is an input > > flag, and there's no

Re: More review of current stm branch code

2006-08-12 Thread Charles Reiss
I wrote: [snip] I suppose trying to make '@' mean something different for signatures and for calls from C (as I have done) is a Bad Idea as long as the same code is used to parse the signatures in both cases. The easy solution is to choose a character other than '@' for one of the directions thou

Re: Review of current stm branch code

2006-08-11 Thread Charles Reiss
On 8/10/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I appreciate the quality of the stm code in general. You're being careful, you know what you're doing with C, and you're good at creating abstractions. I hope when STM is done[*] you'll keep hacking on Parrot. [*] As if it will ever be real

Re: More review of current stm branch code

2006-08-11 Thread Charles Reiss
On 8/10/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: More on the STM branch: ANSWERS, FOR A CHANGE * A comment asks: /* XXX is it okay to combine flatten/slurpy into one flag? */ The answer is "No": "flat" is an output flag, "slurpy_array" is an input flag, and there's no guara

Re: Review of current stm branch code

2006-08-11 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 11:46:37AM +0100, Sam Phillips wrote: > "Six years into the project the Parrot team, responsible for the > Perl6 internals finaly get round to arguing about what style of C > brackets and indenting they are going to use.." It's not an argument.[*] If people kept talkin

Re: Review of current stm branch code

2006-08-11 Thread Sam Phillips
On 11 Aug 2006, at 06:11, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: This is a bad joke, right? How much of your life are you intending to spend on chasing down hard to find missing braces bugs? On 11 Aug 2006, at 06:52, Chip Salzenberg wrote: Seriously: I am serious. Many of the changes I have in mind for t

Re: Review of current stm branch code

2006-08-10 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:11:15PM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:19:21PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > * useless curlies > >OTGH, the project needs automated filters for more coding standards, > >including one that that notes (and optionally kills) the exces

Re: Review of current stm branch code

2006-08-10 Thread Uri Guttman
> "JH" == Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JH> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:19:21PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote: >> * useless curlies >> >> Something I'm hoping to stamp out is the use of curlies for all if/else >> clauses, which makes code taller without making it substant

Re: Review of current stm branch code

2006-08-10 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:19:21PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > * useless curlies > > -if (PMC_IS_NULL(type_hash)) > +if (PMC_IS_NULL(type_hash)) { > return core_type; > +} > hash = PMC_struct_val(type_hash); > -if (!hash->entries) > +

Re: Review of current stm branch code

2006-08-10 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:19:21PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > * enum trailing commas are not standard > >C89 doesn't allow enum lists to end with a comma. PITA, I know, but we >can't require C99 yet. So e.g. 'thread_state_enum' needs a comma removed. Nor does C++ understand the tr

More review of current stm branch code

2006-08-10 Thread Chip Salzenberg
More on the STM branch: ANSWERS, FOR A CHANGE * A comment asks: /* XXX is it okay to combine flatten/slurpy into one flag? */ The answer is "No": "flat" is an output flag, "slurpy_array" is an input flag, and there's no guarantee that the input and output flags won't conflict wi

Review of current stm branch code

2006-08-10 Thread Chip Salzenberg
I appreciate the quality of the stm code in general. You're being careful, you know what you're doing with C, and you're good at creating abstractions. I hope when STM is done[*] you'll keep hacking on Parrot. [*] As if it will ever be really done. "No work of art is ever finished, only aband