I see the null fix, and the other equality stuff looks right so far, but I can't give a complete answer about that yet; our code won't run because the % operator is broken.
(ps (% a b)) => "percent(a, b);"
Daniel
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Vladimir Sedach vsedach@gmail.com wrote:
You're right, that absolutely makes sense. I've pushed a fix.
It's interesting to note that this is the only place in the code Parenscript generates where the semantics of '==' (as opposed to '===') make sense.
Vladimir
2010/4/19 Daniel Gackle danielgackle@gmail.com:
The array literals fix worked, thanks. Next up: the changes around
equality
are a problem. Specifically, the NULL operator, which used to evaluate to true on both
null
and undefined, now applies strict equality, meaning that (null undefined)
is
false. Since we use the NULL operator in a great many places precisely to check whether something is null or undefined, this change breaks our
code.
In general, I've found it to be good to conflate null and undefined in
most
of our PS code; it simplifies things and works fine. So I guess we have
to
go on record as protesting this change... especially since there already existed ways to distinguish null from undefined in the minority case when it's needed. Others' thoughts? Dan p.s. I haven't looked closely at the other implications of the equality changes, because the NULL issue is such a big one that I thought I'd
start
there. _______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
Thanks for catching that. I fixed it (and also made '%' deprecated in favor of 'REM').
Vladimir
2010/4/20 Daniel Gackle danielgackle@gmail.com:
I see the null fix, and the other equality stuff looks right so far, but I can't give a complete answer about that yet; our code won't run because the % operator is broken. (ps (% a b)) => "percent(a, b);" Daniel
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Vladimir Sedach vsedach@gmail.com wrote:
You're right, that absolutely makes sense. I've pushed a fix.
It's interesting to note that this is the only place in the code Parenscript generates where the semantics of '==' (as opposed to '===') make sense.
Vladimir
2010/4/19 Daniel Gackle danielgackle@gmail.com:
The array literals fix worked, thanks. Next up: the changes around equality are a problem. Specifically, the NULL operator, which used to evaluate to true on both null and undefined, now applies strict equality, meaning that (null undefined) is false. Since we use the NULL operator in a great many places precisely to check whether something is null or undefined, this change breaks our code. In general, I've found it to be good to conflate null and undefined in most of our PS code; it simplifies things and works fine. So I guess we have to go on record as protesting this change... especially since there already existed ways to distinguish null from undefined in the minority case when it's needed. Others' thoughts? Dan p.s. I haven't looked closely at the other implications of the equality changes, because the NULL issue is such a big one that I thought I'd start there. _______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net
-
Daniel Gackle -
Vladimir Sedach