On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 09:45:50AM -0400, Hezekiah M. Carty wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Alan W. Irwin <ir...@beluga.phys.uvic.ca> > wrote: > > On 2010-05-01 14:43-0400 Hezekiah M. Carty wrote: > > > >> Alan, > >> > >> Thank you for looking in to this. ??My reason for making that change > >> was that it doesn't make sense to me in a general context to require > >> that both arguments are non-NULL - if the pltr function does not > >> require any extra data to be passed in then it seems strange to > >> require a non-NULL pltr_data argument. ??This holds for any language. > > > > The Python and Tcl issues are now solved, and the pltr_data tests are now > > dropped as of revision 10965. ??Your clear argument for dropping the > > pltr_data tests was an excellent motivator to deal with these issues. > > > > Alan, > > Thank you very much for tracking down and fixing these issues! As per > our off-list discussion, I just got the Python and Tcl bindings > building on my system so I will hopefully be able to be more proactive > about at least identifying issues like this in the future.
One further fallout from this change was the C++ specific extensions to plshade which are exercised by the C++ specific example x01cc. The changes led to a segmentation fault in the example. I have now fixed this up in the C++ bindings. This is shown up by the c++ tests, but nobody had noticed it. So the moral is test early, test often, and be careful about unexpected consequences of seemingly trivial changes. All the fallout from these changes have so far been detected by our test suite which is good! Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
