Some of the grammar in the documentation seems a little
shakey (and maybe you should add some change-bars too.)
I've not the expertise to evaluate the technical portion of
the patch.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
In a conversation that I had with dgp on the Tcl'ers Chat last night, dgp
apparently convinced himself that the patch still isn't entirely the right thing.
There is apparently some confusion in the documentation between the
entrypoint name of the load moduleand the name of the package, if any,
that the DLL provides - leading to this patch. The two really are distinct,
though, and it really would take a TIP to make changes to bring them in
line.
Certainly the fact that a slave interpreter can request a [load] that
is inconsistent with the master is a problem. The correct solution is
not yet clear.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Don, this patch is hopelessly out of date, and we decided that
219379 resulted from conflating the 'package' that [load] uses and
the 'package' that [package] uses, yes? Should we close this patch?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
None
Logged In: YES
user_id=79902
Some of the grammar in the documentation seems a little
shakey (and maybe you should add some change-bars too.)
I've not the expertise to evaluate the technical portion of
the patch.
Logged In: YES
user_id=80530
Updated patch rewrites the man pages changes, and removes
the [load] error on failure to provide a package.
Updated Patch 2001-Apr-03
Logged In: YES
user_id=80530
Any more thoughts on this?
Was there some additional explanation or
documentation I was supposed to provide?
Logged In: YES
user_id=80530
14 months later...
What else is needed from me?
Logged In: YES
user_id=79902
I don't know. I don't remember. :^D If you feel that it
fixes things, then that's fine with me.
Logged In: YES
user_id=99768
In a conversation that I had with dgp on the Tcl'ers Chat last night, dgp
apparently convinced himself that the patch still isn't entirely the right thing.
There is apparently some confusion in the documentation between the
entrypoint name of the load moduleand the name of the package, if any,
that the DLL provides - leading to this patch. The two really are distinct,
though, and it really would take a TIP to make changes to bring them in
line.
Certainly the fact that a slave interpreter can request a [load] that
is inconsistent with the master is a problem. The correct solution is
not yet clear.
Logged In: YES
user_id=80530
At the very least the patch needs updating.
It will not apply to the HEAD.
Will have to get back to this later...
Logged In: YES
user_id=99768
Don, this patch is hopelessly out of date, and we decided that
219379 resulted from conflating the 'package' that [load] uses and
the 'package' that [package] uses, yes? Should we close this patch?