[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       perl5-porters
Subject:    Re: [perl #77974] [PATCH] Record method calls in the context stack
From:       Nicholas Clark <nick () ccl4 ! org>
Date:       2010-11-30 10:27:46
Message-ID: 20101130102746.GE24189 () plum ! flirble ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Ben Morrow wrote:
> Quoth nick@ccl4.org (Nicholas Clark):
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 04:15:37PM -0700, Ben Morrow wrote:
> > 
> > > These patches record whether a given stack frame is for a function or a
> > > method call, by adding a new OPpENTERSUB_PRIVATE bit. I need this for
> > > PRE and POST blocks, which have different behaviour depending on whether
> > > a sub is called as a method or not.
> > 
> > Aaargh. Attached patches make it easy (or easier) to do some things, but
> > really damn hard to do others. I can't even reliably get a list of
> > attachments.
> 
> Is there anything I could have done differently that would make this
> easier? Pushed a branch to github? (My understanding was that it is
> easier to apply from a mail with am than to add a remote and pull from
> there... I suppose 'both' is always an option.)

Sorry for the delay in replying.
No, there wasn't anything that I can see that would be easier (and there
still isn't). I didn't intended to write a "You're wrong, and I'm not telling
you why" response, although I guess I wasn't clear that I was stuck.

> > > I'm not entirely sure about the parts of this which touch B: it's in
> > > ext/, so I presume it's not dual-life, but there seem to be lots of
> > > dual-life-ish bits of code in there. I haven't made any attempt to
> > > preserve compat with older perls; is this wrong?
> > 
> > Historically, when I was doing maint releases of 5.8.x, I was trying to keep
> > one codebase, rather than forking B in maint-5.8 (and subsequently forking
> > 3 ways for blead, maint-5.10 and maint-5.8). IIRC There was also a point
> > when I was (mistakenly) assuming it was actually dual-lived, and being
> > sufficiently defensive to cope with that.
> 
> So, given the current maint policy (i.e. there's no chance of this going
> into any maint), I don't need to worry about it?

No, not really.

Nicholas Clark
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]