[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/10/24]
On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 12:10 am, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Steve Purkis <spurkis@xxxxx.xxx> writes:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 08:53 pm, Piers Cawley wrote:
>>
>>> There's also a case to be made for unbundling Pixie::Info as it's a
>>> handy tool for other things as well I think.
>>
>> I agree, though I think this is lower priority. I'm also worried
>> about Pixie overwriting info another object has set... maybe if you
>> could configure the magic number used?
>
> Well, I did claim it on p5p, and it's way up in the 128-255
> range... It's why I want it unbundled tbh. Brush it up slightly so
> the info scalar is actually a hash of hashes keyed on 'using'
> package. So Pixie would have
>
> $thing --magic-pointer--> { Pixie }{oid}
>
> and Foo would have
>
> $thing --magic-pointer--> {Foo}{bar}
>
> In fact, if memory serves, we already use this two level structure.
>
> Once we get Scalar::Footnote (or whatever we call it) released, we're
> far less likely to see people clashing with the magic number.
Ok, I'm less worried now.
I was thinking Object::Info, but that doesn't make sense if it can be
applied to any old SV... Here's some more ideas:
Scalar::Info
Scalar::MagicInfo
Scalar::HiddenInfo
I still think it's low priority, but there is something to be said for
moving it sooner - it means less code to worry about, and that we can
move to Module::Build sooner rather than later.
>> Well, that's something that Mark and I can work on then. It will be
>> handy for others looking under the hood.
>>
>> What do you think about the plan I posted the other day? Here it is
>> again, slightly modified:
>>
>> 1. tag current release as 'dev-22-10-2003' [done]
>> 2. commit sources of 2.06 as 2.08_01 and go from there. *
>> 3. update the TODO list
>> 4. apply http://staging.quiup.com/perl/Pixie-2.06-reconnect-bug.patch
>> 5. add Mark's recursive structures TODO tests
>> 6. update docs
>
> Make sense.
>
>> The only problem is (2) - I don't want to throw away any work you've
>> done, but in order to keep developing on top of the current codebase I
>> need to know how stable it is. It passes all but one (minor) test,
>> but I've not yet had the chance to try it out in development. What do
>> you think?
>
> I want to throw out a most of the work I've done tbh. The release is
> at least mostly working for a single process, which is useful as far
> as it goes.
Ok, I'll roll 2.06 out as 2.08_01 then. If you have time, it would be
nice to get a summary of the changes you made so we can keep the ideas
and refer back to the code in the future.
> Moving the object graph out to a separate table is
> probably the first thing that should be done once we have a new
> release. (I may have code that does that already btw. I need to get
> something written for Neil Baumann first, and then I'll get onto it)
I'm off doing a tour with my band this afternoon, back late on Monday.
So I won't be doing anything until Tuesday at the earliest. Hopefully
we'll have a release by the end of next week that we can start the
object graph work on.
>> PS: I have a lot of other ideas, but I'll keep them seperate for now.
>
> Okay.
I actually started filling out the TODO list with a few ideas (bad
Steve, no biscuit). I think I've got the priority of things right,
though - this conversation hasn't changed it.
-Steve
There's stuff above here
Generated at 13:56 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52