Michael Hudson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Author: pedronis
Date: Wed Mar  2 19:40:07 2005
New Revision: 9590

Modified:
  pypy/dist/pypy/annotation/classdef.py
  pypy/dist/pypy/annotation/model.py
  pypy/dist/pypy/annotation/test/test_model.py
  pypy/dist/pypy/annotation/unaryop.py
  pypy/dist/pypy/translator/test/snippet.py
  pypy/dist/pypy/translator/test/test_annrpython.py
Log:
don't bump classdef revision number if only a fresher revision in an
attribute is involved, notice that we still reflow even in this
case.

contains logic modified to let caller distinguish this situation,
RevDiff (a false value) is returned if the only reason for a false
contains relationship is rev numbers.

without these changes the new test analysing make_eo would recurse
infinititely.


At some point, we're *really* going to want to document some of this
stuff!  I.e. something approaching a proof of correctness and
termination for the annotator.  I guess having a correct and/or
terminating annotator would be a good start...


yes, but this one change is not only obscure but is also not correct in
general (I have an example). The check-in comment indeed gives the wrong impression. The real criteria, I think, is whether the class expanded structurally has changed or not, although this one will help narrowing the cases where we really need to care about that.



_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev

Reply via email to