On Mon Oct 08 12:14:07 2007, leo wrote: > Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2007 19:05 schrieb Paul Cochrane: > > So, the patch is right (however, for my wrong reasoning)? Is > everyone > > happy if I apply it then? > > $ svn ann src/pmc/pair.pmc > 8374 leo A Pair PMC represents one key => value mapping like > a one > element hash. > > I actually can't remember the reason for writing this one. But I think > it was > pugs/perl6 related some time ago, for some value of "time ago". > > As this obvious bug never came up, this pmc looks likes very > undertested or > more precisely unused to me. > > I'd check the overall usage of this pmc and estimate the harm of > removing it > alltogether.
That's a good idea. Is it ok to solve this issue first? I've got a better patch which retains the code's logic and has the added advantage that the compiler doesn't complain about missing return statements. Paul
pair_pmc.patch
Description: Binary data
