Re: [tcljava-dev] How to submit a code change (was: Patch for bug 121678)

[Mo D. <md...@cy...>]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Christian Krone wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> > About this patch, are there test cases from Tcl 8.3
> > that fail without this patch? I don't see any
> > failures in the tests Jacl runs, so I am
> > guessing that there must be some test failures in
> > the newer Tcl regression test suite. Perhaps
> > we need to add those failing tests before
> > doing a commit of this patch.
> 
> No, I don't know of any test from Tcl8.3 either.
> I detected this incompatibility to Tcl8.3, when
> I was working interactively with jaclsh, where
> something like the following happended:
>   % open /etc/passwd
>   file0
> Oops, normally this is file3!
> 
> Then I tested some stuff in tclsh8.3, where
> it seems to be asserted that file0 is an alias
> for stdin, file1 for stdout and file2 for stderr.
> This was the same in Jacl, *before* we add the
> method StdChannel.getChanName()!
> Due to the introduction of this method the
> standard channels no longer occupy the first three
> slots in the "filename table"...

Humm, well I am not sure it is all that critical
but I guess I don't have a big problem with it.
I would feel a lot better about it if we could
add some test cases to Tcl 8.4 and then to Jacl,
so that we knew this previously untested feature
was going to be tested in the future.

I still don't get how this relates to the
other bits of the patch that add new
exceptions when the file was not opened
for writing and so on. Surely these
conditions have test cases in the
Tcl suite? If not, we really should
add them to Tcl first. That way
we can be sure Jacl and Tcl will
not diverge in the future.

> > It seem like your patch does away with the
> > StdChannel.getChanName() method. Would
> > you not want to call setChanName(String)
> > perhaps in the StdChannel() constructor?
> 
> I think that this change will not implement
> the feature that the standard channels can be
> named by two different names (e.g. standard input
> with stdin and file0)...

No, but it would make it so that you would
not need to overload the getChanName()
method, right?
 
> Greetings, Krischan
> 
> P.S.: Your latest mail has a timestamp of 2:33.
> Are you working around the clock? Or do you have
> a computer next to your bed?

Even better, I have a laptop on the bed with
DSL no less (dang, we are spoiled). I did not
realize it was getting so late, time to sleep.

later
Mo