Re: [erlang-patches] syntax_tools anonymous function error
Anthony Ramine <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.erlang.bugs,gmane.comp.lang.erlang.patches |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I guess we can merge it now then. Le 1 oct. 2013 à 23:56, Richard Carlsson a écrit : > Maybe I got confused - was the format change in the other direction, i.e., used to be atoms but is now trees? In that case, I guess you're right. Just make sure that the code does the right thing in all combinations of cases, and you're done. :-) > > /Richard > > On 2013-10-01 23:41, Anthony Ramine wrote: >> In fact I really don't see what you mean. The problem is revert_implicit_fun/1 calling concrete/1 on the individual parts when it shouldn't. >> >> I don't see how changing another function would fix anything. >> >> Le 1 oct. 2013 à 14:30, Anthony Ramine a écrit : >> >>> Thanks for the reply, will amend this tonight. >>> >>> Le 1 oct. 2013 à 14:25, Richard Carlsson a écrit : >>> >>>> Sorry, drowning in stuff as usual. Anthony, I trust that your analysis of why that clause could be deleted, so that should be ok. But I thought there was something weird about the format changes, and now I think I see what it is: calls like arity_qualifier_body(Name) should never return a naked atom or integer - always a syntax tree. So the fix for the revert "fun F/A" case should be done in implicit_fun_name/1 instead, just as it's handled for "fun M:F/A". And in the reverting of "fun M:F/A", you shouldn't have to change anything at all, since it's already handled. >>>> >>>> /Richard >>>> >>>> On 2013-10-01 13:58 , Henrik Nord wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> I was awaiting an answer to this: >>>>> @richcarl <https://github.com/richcarl>Should I amend this commit? >>>>> And the possible amend to the commit. >>>>> >>>>> If that is not going to happen I can put it through the test-merge precedure >>>>> >>>>> /Henrik >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-10-01 13:27, Anthony Ramine wrote: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> I see on the development page that an action is required from me for this patch [1]. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what exactly is required from me..? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]http://www.erlang.org/development/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 20 mai 2013 à 10:12, Fredrik a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 05/19/2013 12:33 PM, Anthony Ramine wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello Michael, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This patch fixes support of implicit funs with variables in igor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> git fetchhttps://github.com/nox/otp.git igor-funs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/nox/otp/compare/erlang:maint...igor-funs >>>>>>>> https://github.com/nox/otp/compare/erlang:maint...igor-funs.patch >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Anthony, >>>>>>> I've fetched your patch and it should be visible in the 'pu' branch shortly. >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BR Fredrik Gustafsson >>>>>>> Erlang OTP Team >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> /Henrik Nord Erlang/OTP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> erlang-patches mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anthony Ramine >>> >> > -- Anthony Ramine _______________________________________________ erlang-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-bugs