From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12358 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2017 21:41:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 41351 Received: (qmail 16947 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2017 21:41:05 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(66.111.4.27):SA:0(-0.7/5.0):. Processed in 2.724199 secs); 23 Jun 2017 21:41:05 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: d.s@daniel.shahaf.name X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at daniel.shahaf.name does not designate permitted sender hosts) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= daniel.shahaf.name; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=WAnozQ l9wXHJKd4D4gQjN/4kAwxD0ZPPN4HzwSAF5V4=; b=RopIzmuLoY3HUSqV1EQb03 G/zmx8xSMvDnQDbmwYHRMU0ZnpJKf6lOwaDlyOVJU30U9zI/C+thQV4t+Adg7aWD UUBf2zNKIJApoyQAWhgdXRm0T40v9jt+CDp06jecYlWIJfYcEDZxSx/RnGdF5fCI aSG44hdxO44CnBXJ9v6wLikawFJQ3BZu/NiVFwU09VPkQDB/SO/fokY7wuCA+UA+ skfen8M9hvE/lP3gxHXFLbunjARFzvtNLCRk3V1+/5a6s7uy9p14xLrjJbkNRtcv Ew5dtkZu1oGV5qwkB4GJ8T/Y4glrD8l9PbuIX0GvPv7318f3xwCHF3P+xamqYVZA == DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=WAnozQ l9wXHJKd4D4gQjN/4kAwxD0ZPPN4HzwSAF5V4=; b=LzzErJpdteZCOAoTsr7nlf adsGrMJiBAnbQtt8LX8uM76DaHTTb3pwlnG83CsZ0jvs1wVXartuxr5RThmyAp6/ QySKSc011opy52Y/+yHwngMiohFw+ODxJkKv8FVMhiJZuzPlIV0T1pfmvJff8OnR LpqG0uDBzcGc7ukBzpCqW/yYUxRsuM1t6VHEX4fdwIG6kHkBWhGKzqGuxIpW2l2w sVqhrajVf24eSvAl/ITAkw/yxltX6T9pcbq0BPOCMygACCPFRvmjhDBXDKh61BPP rHa9ShEOAhYX8U+fxBwcP10yyG3O97TiECJTClbJ+A8uF0pk+sVL6W6tQUZiUZbQ == X-ME-Sender: Message-Id: <1498253451.3581506.1019483080.3F968E2D@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Daniel Shahaf To: zsh-workers@zsh.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-72841c42 In-Reply-To: <170623013643.ZM7546@torch.brasslantern.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2 modules, zsh/db, zsh/gdbm, bug-fixes Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:30:51 +0000 References: <170623013643.ZM7546@torch.brasslantern.com> Bart Schaefer wrote on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 01:36 -0700: > Given the bug-fixes in zsh/db/gdbm, this seems worth accepting if the > license comments are fixed. Other opinions? There's no documentation. That means I can't know what the patch _does_ unless I reverse engineer the implementation, which I'm ENOTIME for. I assume the patch adds a zsh/db module that introduces abstractions that all (existing and future) zsh/db/* modules can share? +1 to the concept, but again, I haven't reviewed the concrete details. If (user or dev) documentation needs to be written, I would prefer it were written _before_ the patch was accepted. Is it a problem that the module name is a path-wise prefix of another module's name (zsh/db v. zsh/db/gdbm). Can't think of a particular problem, but it's unprecedented. [meant as a statement of fact] There's a ton of vim folding added, {{{ }}}. We don't have it elsewhere, I assume it's just a scalpel. Likewise with the whitespace (indentation) changes. The #if 0 looks alarming. Maybe I missed discussion of it, but I'd be surprised if the correct response to a bug in some configurations was to disable the function call in all configurations, without even a version number check (or, what would be better if it is possible, a runtime probe for the bug). The comment should link to the bug. In closer look, this change looks like a functionality change of zsh/db/gdbm that's unrelated to the addition of zsh/db (and so should be a separate patch). db.c has variables declared in the middle of the block. That's a C99-ism, and while db/gdbm.c does it, the rest of zsh does not. Not critical. db.c has a couple of zwarn() that don't state the origin of the error, I think it'd be useful to make them zwarnnam(name="zsh/db") or so. Cheers, Daniel