On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:56:14 -0400
Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
wrote:
On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems that the implementation is not that broken actually.
On 12.03.2015 18:36, Jim Jagielski wrote:
No, it's a design error. There's not much helping that... once it
ships, that's our implementation. Might caution us to provide more
careful code review before n.n.0 releases on new features.
S if apr_snprintf(%d were to, on every 50th int,
S if apr_snprintf(%d were to, on every 50th int, print
it out in decimal form, that would be a design error? :)
That's a terrible analogy :)
Yeah, I agree.
If so, how can we call it a skiplist which has a set of compliant
expectations? It's not a skiplist implementation at
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that the implementation is not that broken actually.
One can still have the add semantic with insert() in 1.5.x by using
the
It seems that the implementation is not that broken actually.
One can still have the add semantic with insert() in 1.5.x by using
the appropriate compare function and apr_skiplist_insert_compare(),
that is, a function that does not return 0 when entries are equal, but
rather 0 for LIFO or 0 for
On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that the implementation is not that broken actually.
One can still have the add semantic with insert() in 1.5.x by using
the appropriate compare function and apr_skiplist_insert_compare(),
that is, a function
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:57:22 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Mar 7, 2015, at 2:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:19:40 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
After doing some additional research, I think that the
No, it's a design error. There's not much helping that... once it
ships, that's our implementation. Might caution us to provide more
careful code review before n.n.0 releases on new features.
S if apr_snprintf(%d were to, on every 50th int, print
it out in decimal form, that would
On Mar 12, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
No, it's a design error. There's not much helping that... once it
ships, that's our implementation. Might caution us to provide more
careful code review before n.n.0 releases on new features.
S if
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
No, it's a design error. There's not much helping that... once it
ships, that's our implementation. Might caution us to provide more
careful code review before n.n.0 releases on new features.
S if
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:36:55 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
No, it's a design error. There's not much helping that... once it
ships, that's our implementation. Might caution us to provide more
careful code review before n.n.0 releases on new features.
S if
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 8:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:19:40 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
After doing some additional research, I think that the
current implementation of NOT allowing duplicates (in
APR 1.5/1.6) is BROKEN. In trunk
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 8:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:19:40 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
It would be to give apr_skiplist_insert_compare(), which exists in
1.5.x, the add semantic when its compare function arg is NULL.
Note this wouldn't break any assumption on
apr_skiplist_insert_compare() since the current
On Mar 7, 2015, at 2:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:19:40 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
After doing some additional research, I think that the
current implementation of NOT allowing duplicates (in
APR 1.5/1.6) is BROKEN. In
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 8:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 11:19:40 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
After doing some additional research, I think that the
current
Plus, the way we do it in trunk breaks the skiplist stability
requirement, so that needs to be fixed as well.
On Mar 5, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
After doing some additional research, I think that the
current implementation of NOT allowing duplicates (in
APR
After doing some additional research, I think that the
current implementation of NOT allowing duplicates (in
APR 1.5/1.6) is BROKEN. In trunk this is determined by
a flag w/ the insert statement, but the default *should*
be to allow dups.
As such, I'd like to adjust 1.5/1.6 to the correct and,
On 03/05/2015 05:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
After doing some additional research, I think that the
current implementation of NOT allowing duplicates (in
APR 1.5/1.6) is BROKEN. In trunk this is determined by
a flag w/ the insert statement, but the default *should*
be to allow dups.
As
No, we didn't. But the current behavior is broken, so if people
are expecting our skiplists to act like real skiplists, it will
fail. I think fixing broken should be allowed...
On Mar 5, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/05/2015 05:19 PM, Jim Jagielski
20 matches
Mail list logo
