Re: [TCLCORE] CFV: TIP #696

[<apn...@ya...>]

Ok then, one final proposal. 

Packages/applications can use codes in the range 5 - 0x3FFFFFFF. New Tcl
codes will have to be negative, 0-4 (as today) or above 0x40000000. This
should help with compatibility with existing extensions as well as not
burden new ones with remembering large values. Any new Tcl codes will likely
come with a string equivalent like "break" etc. so it should not be
inconvenient for Tcl core authors either.

If I don't hear any contrary opinions, I will make that change to the TIP.
If anyone does have concerns with this as well, please make a counter
proposal.

I'll also reset the vote as there has been discussion and changes since the
CFV.

/Ashok


-----Original Message-----
From: Rolf Ade <tcl...@po...> 
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 4:22 AM
To: tcl...@li...
Subject: Re: [TCLCORE] CFV: TIP #696


apnmbx-public--- via Tcl-Core writes:
> Regarding tcllib, yes, some packages will have to be touched. Will it help
> if we reduce the range of Tcl reserved codes as @mjanssen suggested on the
> chat to say, -0xFFFF:0xFFFF ?

Well, I raised head only because it was so easy to find examples in
public available code as

https://core.tcl-lang.org/tcllib/file?udc=1&ln=2770&ci=trunk&name=modules%2F
mime%2Fmime.tcl

https://core.tcl-lang.org/tcllib/file?udc=1&ln=182&ci=trunk&name=modules%2Fs
truct%2Ftree_tcl.tcl

Reducing the range of Tcl reserved codes to -0xFFFF:0xFFFF would not
help for that cases.

A much smaller reserved range is appealing not because it would milden
migration needs but it would extension writers relieve from the need to
use ridiculously long own return codes.

rolf


_______________________________________________
Tcl-Core mailing list
Tcl...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcl-core