Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote:
>Maciek Fijalkowski wrote: > > >>Niko Matsakis wrote: >> >> >> >>>>As well as some of your commits have broken JS tests. I'm not totally >>>>convinced that my attempt (returning void) is better than your (not >>>>returning void), but please at least run JS tests and check if nothing >>>>is broken. If you brake something, but you're totally convinced that >>>>I'm >>>>the one who should fix something please at least contact me, I would be >>>>happy to sort things out. >>>> >>>> >>>My sincere apologies! I was trying to be careful not to break >>>things, but evidently not careful enough. I will make sure to run >>>the JS tests in the future --- I didn't in the past because I assumed >>>I did not have the required software. >>> >>>Regarding the change to get_ and set_field to make it ignore Void >>>arguments, I ported that from the CLI code --- I mentioned it on IRC >>>and people thought it was a good idea. I don't really understand too >>>well whether it is necessary or not, but I am afraid that your change >>>might break the CLI tests, as previously they relied upon their own >>>version of the GetField MetaVM op which *did* ignore the Void >>>operations. >>> >>>Again, my apologies for breaking things. :) >>> >>> > >I think it happened to everybody at one point. > > > > >>Sorry for being too agressive :-] Actually I do agree with you and I'll >>make JS working that way. Just please inform me each time you change >>something which breaks tests explicitely. >> >> > >Well, actually your fix broke the cli tests :-). > >Cheers, > >Carl Friedrich > > Yeah, I know. Didn't know that CLI uses oosupport, I've fixed all by now I guess. My apologies this time ;-) _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
