Re: Memory management practices

2011-09-11 Thread Ben Gamari
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__,

[PATCH] test: reset known_broken status in test_expect_equal and test_expect_equal_file

2011-09-11 Thread david
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

Re: [PATCH] test: reset known_broken status in test_expect_equal and test_expect_equal_file

2011-09-11 Thread Dmitry Kurochkin
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

Re: [PATCH] test: reset known_broken status in test_expect_equal and test_expect_equal_file

2011-09-11 Thread David Bremner
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

Memory management practices

2011-09-11 Thread Ben Gamari
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

[PATCH] test: reset known_broken status in test_expect_equal and test_expect_equal_file

2011-09-11 Thread da...@tethera.net
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

[PATCH] test: reset known_broken status in test_expect_equal and test_expect_equal_file

2011-09-11 Thread David Bremner
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

Patch: Flush and Reopen

2011-09-11 Thread Austin Clements
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: > > > >

Patch: Flush and Reopen

2011-09-11 Thread Martin Owens
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

Patch: Flush and Reopen

2011-09-11 Thread Martin Owens
ail/notmuch/attachments/20110911/6ac58cd9/attachment.bin>

Memory management practices

2011-09-11 Thread Austin Clements
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