World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15528x3] | It is exactly the same as IMPORT/isolate. |
I reviewed and put comments in your vprint tickets. In both cases the bug is caused by code *in* %vprint.r3, not the code calling it. | |
I would love to fix the bugs, or figure ouut what they are if they are caused by native code, but without the source to vprint.r3 I can't. | |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15531x3] | I don't understand what this means... "Wrong errors get the severity "text" unless the specific error implies a potential security hole. " |
brian... if I do vprint in the main app, the functions work. | |
actually, when I do the script in the module, they work in the main app but not in the module. | |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15534x2] | The severity "text" is just an indication of the type of bug. Severity is not priority. Generating the wrong error is marked as text throughout. |
In some cases the particular bug generated indicates a lack of bounds checking, and that is considered bad. However, it is the lack of bounds checking that makes it bad, not generating the wrong error. | |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15536] | why does DOing the exact same script, generate the proper error in the main app and generate a bogus error when DOne from a module... that is the problem. |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15537] | About bug#928, couuld you at least post the header of %vprint.r3? We can't diagnose the problem without at least that. |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15538x2] | I can't write a module if every syntax error becomes a bogus undefined error when I try to use it. |
posted on curecode... vprint isn't a module anymore... its just a normal script defining words, not even within a context... just simple vprint: func [args][body] | |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15540x3] | I'm not saying that bug#923 isn't important (that's a priority thing), just that it isn't severe. Severity is defined by how dificult it is to fix, not by how much trouble it causes. |
And I still can't diagnose bug#928 without at least the header of %vprint.r3 - we have to have something testable. | |
Sorry, it was bug#924 that was the wrong error bug, not bug#923. | |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15543] | ah ok... now it makes sense. |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15544] | Bug#923 requires the whole source of %vprint.r3 that causes the crash, not just the header. |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15545x2] | ok, I'll provide one line examples which cause both crashes.... the bugs occur with ANY script I tried. |
the import twice crashed with a file containing only a print statement. | |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15547x2] | There may be a pattern in the scripts you would try., |
Importing a module twice when specified with a filename instead of a word is almost always an error, but shouldn't crash. | |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15549] | what do you mean "is almost always an error"? |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15550x3] | There is an error in the import process, but modules loaded by filename are actually loaded each time. If the module has a name header then only the first import works properly. Every subsequent import by filename will be a logic error. However, you can import a named module the first time with a filename and then use the name for all subsequent imports with no difficulty. If the module is not named and specifically designed to be loaded multiple times, then cool, you can do so. |
Naming a module enables its reuse, but all subsequent uses should be specified by name, not by filename. | |
If the module isn't already loaded then specifying it by name generates the filename by adding .r to the end and checking import-paths. | |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15553x2] | ok, so far it seems strickly related to file based import... specifically, when it tries to load the file a second time. it raises the assertion crash. reloading a module can be needed... it was changed, for example, and you want to allow run-time updates, cause your ip ports must not be closed. |
the module re-use works correctly. | |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15555] | In theory, runtime updates should be version-triggered. The init code could in theory check for a prior version and migratee the data. |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15556] | what init code? |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15557] | The code in the code block of the module. |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15558x2] | I agree, that is the point of reloading it runtime. |
but right now it crashes at the second load. | |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15560x3] | I could use a minimal header and code block of a module that triggers the assertion crash on reimport by filename (bug#923). |
Justt something to trace and test with. | |
Those assertion crashes are caused in the native code, but we need to narrow down *which* native code. | |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15563x3] | I just uploaded an VERY minimal module and application with 3 imports... the 2 initial are by name and are fine, the third is by file and it crashes. |
is that ok for testing? | |
for (bug#923) | |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15566] | That's what I thought - it's named. You are only supposed to import named modules once per version - subsequent imports are to be by name. New versions are supposed to displace the old, and that might be where the crash is. This will be interesting to trace. |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15567x2] | have fun ;-) |
currently building example scripts for bug#924 | |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15569] | Cool, thanks. |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15570x2] | posted 3 file example. |
re bug#924 in one test, I even had the print word not bount to any context ! | |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15572x2] | OK, I just looked at bug#924 and now get what you want to do. It's not a bug, it's by design. The code block of a module is bound before the block starts executing. You can't define new words in the module's context unless those new words are defined in imported modules or in the code itself at the top level, or anywhere in the code if the module is isolated. |
Sorry, bug#928, not 924. | |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15574] | why is that? this means we can't create new words in a module at run-time? |
BrianH 14-Jun-2009 [15575] | Right. Even if you did you wouldn't be able to use them because the code would already have been bound. |
Maxim 14-Jun-2009 [15576x2] | aren't module contexts auto-expanding? |
but in the script (previously global) context... every word is bound to the script context when loaded, why not providing the same for modules. if it hasn't been set when its encountered then you raise the proper unset error. | |
older newer | first last |