Sorry I've been so quiet on this recently. I've been a little under the
weather.
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:53:28 -0400, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
Ah, the *Python* objects don't care, but the underlying C objects do.
Suppose the Query were finalized first. Python calls Query.__del__,
From: David Bremner brem...@debian.org
Commit 4cc6727 introduced the library function
test_subtest_known_broken which sets a variable
test_subtest_known_broken_ . Unfortunately this variable is not reset
if test_begin_subtest is not called before the next
test_expect_success or
Hi David.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:11:54 -0300, da...@tethera.net wrote:
From: David Bremner brem...@debian.org
Commit 4cc6727 introduced the library function
test_subtest_known_broken which sets a variable
test_subtest_known_broken_ . Unfortunately this variable is not reset
if
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:30:54 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David.
IMHO this is not a good idea, because:
1. It introduces multiple places where the flag is reset. If new
test_expect_* functions are added in the future, there would be more
of these. So
Sorry I've been so quiet on this recently. I've been a little under the
weather.
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:53:28 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Ah, the *Python* objects don't care, but the underlying C objects do.
> Suppose the Query were finalized first. Python calls Query.__del__,
> which calls
From: David Bremner
Commit 4cc6727 introduced the library function
test_subtest_known_broken which sets a variable
test_subtest_known_broken_ . Unfortunately this variable is not reset
if test_begin_subtest is not called before the next
test_expect_success or
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:30:54 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> Hi David.
> IMHO this is not a good idea, because:
>
> 1. It introduces multiple places where the flag is reset. If new
>test_expect_* functions are added in the future, there would be more
>of these. So it brings us more
BTW, in the future, you should send patches inline (see the patch
formatting guide I linked to earlier for easy ways to do this). It
makes them much easier to review and reply to.
Quoth Martin Owens on Sep 09 at 8:43 pm:
> On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 19:40 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> >
> >
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 20:23 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> BTW, in the future, you should send patches inline (see the patch
> formatting guide I linked to earlier for easy ways to do this). It
> makes them much easier to review and reply to.
I tried to do this, my email client doesn't allow
ail/notmuch/attachments/20110911/6ac58cd9/attachment.bin>
Quoth Ben Gamari on Sep 11 at 5:47 pm:
> Sorry I've been so quiet on this recently. I've been a little under the
> weather.
No worries.
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:53:28 -0400, Austin Clements
> wrote:
> > Hence my suggestion that, rather than trying to emulate C-style memory
> > management in
11 matches
Mail list logo