Activity
From 05/27/2015 to 06/25/2015
06/25/2015
- 12:25 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Very good plan and design.
- 11:50 AM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Support for variables.
I am thinking of the following changes in code:
* an abstract class @Assigner@ with @BaseDat... - 11:31 AM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- These are very good points (the complete matrix and the support for variables). I think both of these issues need to...
- 10:10 AM Bug #2592 (WIP): improve support for implicit type conversions
- I updated the code according your reviews. The new revno is 10890.
Constantin: your 2nd question is very good. I n... - 04:26 AM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Greg Shah wrote:
> Constantin: as the owner of @ControlFlowOps@, do you have any concerns with the update?
The logi...
06/24/2015
- 05:04 PM Bug #2592 (New): improve support for implicit type conversions
- Code Review Task Branch 2592 Revision 10889
The core functionality seems good.
1. In @FieldAssigner.assign()@ y... - 03:53 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- 10889 looks good, thanks, but I still want Greg or Constantin's stamp of approval, particularly on the @ControlFlowOp...
- 03:48 PM Bug #2592 (WIP): improve support for implicit type conversions
- New changes committed to revision 10889.
- 03:29 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Code review 10888:
This looks good to me, with 2 very minor points:
* Please rename @FieldAssigner$Scope.list@ to... - 03:01 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- The branch has been updated to revision 10888. I already tested with ETF and it passed all +JULIAN_DATE tests that we...
- 01:32 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Ovidiu Maxiniuc wrote:
> Looks like my idea from note 7 can be easier implemented thanks to the @List<FieldAssigner>... - 12:40 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- > Sorry for these incremental status updates.
You have done exactly the right thing in posting these different ide... - 12:30 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- Looks like my idea from note 7 can be easier implemented thanks to the @List<FieldAssigner>@ from @FieldAssigner@ con...
- 11:55 AM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- After further thinking:
what if we allow the internal variable from @FieldAssigner@ to be updated. For example, if t... - 10:47 AM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- I have created branch 2592 from the main trunk (revno 10886). I committed the intermediary changes in @ControlFlowOps...
- 10:06 AM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- I started the implementation for the optional conversions in message passing parameters. The forward checking is done...
06/19/2015
- 03:41 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- I continued by digging into procedure call mechanism. In @ControlFlowOps@, there is @InternalEntryCaller.validate()@ ...
- 03:39 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- On 06/19/2015 10:04 PM, Constantin Asofiei wrote:
> Eric/Ovidiu,
>
> This is a new discovery. And it looks like i... - 03:38 PM Bug #2592: improve support for implicit type conversions
- I found the following external procedure @caller.p@:...
- 03:36 PM Bug #2592 (Closed): improve support for implicit type conversions
06/08/2015
- 10:53 AM Bug #2578 (Closed): incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- Nice work, Ovidiu.
- 10:48 AM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- The update passed the regression testing, was committed to bzr as revno 10874 and it was distributed by mail.
06/06/2015
- 12:21 PM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- Update 0605a did well with the full group of search unit tests.
06/05/2015
- 01:10 PM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- Code Review om_upd20150605a.zip
I'm good with this approach. You can check it in if it passes testing. - 12:21 PM Bug #2578 (WIP): incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- Thanks, Greg, this is exactly my idea. I was sure the @ui_statements@ is not the right place - it is also called too ...
06/04/2015
- 03:16 PM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- OK, I've dug into this code more deeply. I think I understand better what you are trying to do.
I still believe t...
05/29/2015
- 05:00 AM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- Greg Shah wrote:
> Code Review om_upd20150528a.zip
> 1. Are the form header changes are necessary to fix this bug? I...
05/28/2015
- 03:45 PM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- Code Review om_upd20150528a.zip
1. Are the form header changes are necessary to fix this bug? If I understand cor... - 02:08 PM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- Eric Faulhaber wrote:
> The changes look correct to me, but I am not expert in this area of the code. Greg will be r... - 01:08 PM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- Code review 0527b:
The changes look correct to me, but I am not expert in this area of the code. Greg will be revi...
05/27/2015
- 03:27 PM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- This update is not the ideal solution I wanted but it fixes both last issues.
It passed my testcases, as well as the... - 10:55 AM Bug #2578: incorrect promotion of local defined variables
- My candidate has the following flaw I am trying to fix: when a @FORM HEADER@ is defined locally in an internal proced...
Also available in: Atom