Re: issues

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 31, 11:03am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: issues

I'm responding only to the 3.0.6-related stuff here:

} 64-bit stuff in 3.0.6: Well, I described the final result as experimental,
} [...] and if 3.0.6 is ready to go it's not worth waiting for possibly
} suboptimal 64-bit integer support.

OK, I won't worry about it unless you happen to pop out something before
I get all the other things resolved.

} ${..."$(...)"...}: I haven't looked yet, but I don't see why the change
} shouldn't work in 3.0.6; the test will simply have to be in a different
} place as the nested expansion mechanism is less sophisticated.

The main thing I'm concerned about is whether the resulting behavior will
be the same in 3.0.6.  E.g., right now, certain 3.0.x nested expansions
using the (@) flag don't work any more in 3.1.5+ (because the (@) needs to
be repeated at multiple levels).  The ${..."$(..)"...} change permits a
different syntax to accomplish similar expansions without repeating the
(@); but I don't want to add it to 3.0.6 unless the syntax will produce
the same results in both versions.

I'll see if I can figure out where to put the test in 3.0.6 and compare
some results.

} the minor parameter fixes:  I didn't check if parameters with PM_UNSET were
} allowed in the parameter table in 3.0

I'm wrong; it does seem to be used in the table (for specials that are not
set by default, if no other reason).  Can you do both those parameter fixes
for 3.0.6, or should I try to puzzle it out?

} Probably the stuff on pipelines and terminals is mostly or all applicable

The patches all applied and required only the addition of one extern decl
for list_pipe to compile.  They'll be in 3.0.6.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com