[Tcl-bugs] [Patch #102561] Fix for bug 123153

[<no...@so...>]

Patch #102561 has been updated. 

Project: tcl
Category: None
Status: Open
Submitted by: andreas_kupries
Assigned to : andreas_kupries
Summary: Fix for bug 123153

Follow-Ups:

Date: 2000-Dec-21 08:47
By: dgp

Comment:
The patch did not apply clean to the CVS HEAD,
partly due to end-of-line translations, and
partly because it looks like a diff from an
earlier state of the sources.  I think using
`cvs diff -c` to generate patches works better.

After applying the patch and cleaning up, there were
still references to Tcl_InitHashTableEx() in doc/Hash.3,
generic/tclHash.c, generic/tclObj.c, and unix/mkLinks.
The reference in generic/tclObj.c causes a link failure
when trying to build the patched sources.

On line 145 of the patched generic/tclHash.c, was there
still any reason to keep the

	#undef Tcl_InitHashTable

?  I assumed there wasn't, and have removed it.

The revised patch corrects these problems and updates
the ChangeLog message to reflect these additions.

One other issue I did not revise is the documentation.
After patching, doc/Hash.3 still claims:

     Tcl_InitHashTable calls the extended function
     Tcl_InitExtendedHashTable with a NULL typePtr.

but that's no longer true since the macro has been
removed, right?  Please correct that, or explain to
me why it is still correct.

-------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2000-Dec-21 01:21
By: andreas_kupries

Comment:
The forgotten changes to doc/Hash.3 are now part of the (revised) patch.
-------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2000-Dec-20 12:24
By: dgp

Comment:
This patch is missing changes to doc/Hash.3 to document
the new public function.  Maybe that's because of the
indecision on the name?

My vote is to change the name to Tcl_InitExtendedHashTable().  I agree we
should aim for
getting rid of all the *Ex() stuff in the long run, so why
keep one now when we aren't forced to do so by compatibility
with a prior stable release?

Add the docs and I'll approve integration.
-------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2000-Dec-20 00:52
By: andreas_kupries

Comment:
Although I would like to see the *Ex functions exterminated I also have not
that big an attachment to this part of the patch that makes me unable to
drop it. I am willing to leave this hunk out (now), but would also log a
request to cleanup the mess with the 'Ex'es for Tcl 9.
-------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2000-Dec-09 18:24
By: hobbs

Comment:
Is the aesthetic change of Tcl_InitHashTableEx to Tcl_InitExtendedHashTable
really necessary?  As the comment notes, the use of Tcl_*Ex is ubiquitous,
even if many hate it due to its overuse by Windows.  At least people
understand it.
-------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------
For more info, visit:

http://sourceforge.net/patch/?func=detailpatch&patch_id=102561&group_id=10894