r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3]

BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5512x2]
The fix was is alpha 98.
was in
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5514]
Something changed between A107 and A108.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5515]
A lot changed. What do you mean?
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5516x5]
In this specific case.
Ah, I see.
>> make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]           
** foo error: (improperly formatted error)
Shouldn't have tested with type: 'script earlier :)
** script error
 and "** Script error" are fatally similar.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5521]
If the error checking of make error! itself is more strict in A108, 
cool :)
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5522x2]
So the change is that `make error!` now is strict in what error types 
it accepts.
Yes, exactly.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5524]
Oh, it must have been to error! that was fixed in a98 in the same 
way. Cool.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5525x3]
Or it was "unfixed" somewhen between A98 and A107 :)
Good.
Should be noted on the changelog, though.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5528]
You should add some tests to verify that error code checking. I suggest 
TRY/except as a way to format the tests.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5529]
Hmm, A98 had the same behaviour as A107, for both `to error!` and 
`make error!`.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5530x2]
['error = try/except [make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]] ['error]]
That kind of test would help.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5532x2]
try/except [make error! [type: 'foo id: 'bar]] [true]
Good, good!
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5534]
A correctly made error is also TRUE? until it is triggered.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5535]
Indeed.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5536x2]
So if the tests succeed on TRUE? conditions, rather than #[true] 
ones, your test will fail with false success. Does your test processor 
check for #[true] results, or does it just standard REBOL conditional 
code?
does it just use
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5538x4]
It checks for logic?.
IIRC, but I haven't yet read the code in detail. Given that it was 
written by Ladislav, I suspect it is rather advanced.
Yes, it does indeed logic? test results.
But making the tests a bit more explicit does no harm :)
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5542]
The changes to error creation came with the fix to bug#1593. I put 
a comment to that effect in the ticket.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5543]
While you are at it, please reopen bug#1667 and bug#1679, both of 
which are not really fixed in A108.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5544]
I am going through the bugs in numeric order, testing them I have 
reopened a few so far.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5545]
You can also mark bug#1645 as tested, works for me.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5546]
Unless you are an admin, you shouldn't have been able to change the 
status of CC #1647 even if you submitted the ticket, since it was 
marked built. It looks like that CC bug is back.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5547x2]
I can change all tickets I submitted.
Anything else would be stupid.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5549x3]
CC tickets are supposed to only be changeable by reviewers after 
they have been reviewed. Otherwise the reviewing process is broken.
Could you test #1651?
Sorry, I mean #1652.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5552x2]
Not without a hoskit.
Added another comment to #328.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5554x2]
That would slow down decompression quite a bit. It looks like a /zlib 
option would be a good idea, to tell it when to try that method.
Can you determine the length of the uncompressed data using that 
method?
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5556x2]
Of course.
But as I mention, if you do that, it's already 90% of what the decompressor 
does.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5558]
I'll mention in a comment to that ticket my preferred method of your 
three choices.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5559x2]
Fine, I'll state my preference afterwards :)
But I think the sane choice is pretty obvious :)
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5561]
Done. Go ahead.