Re: unused unimplemented opcodes

2006-03-13 Thread Leopold Toetsch 

Leopold Toetsch wrote:

There are some opcodes in core.ops which don't do anything:

I'd do:

  setline   ... delete, doesn't make sense
  getline   ... move to debug.ops, implement it
  setfile   ... delete
  getfile   ... mpve to debug.ops, implement it
  setpackagedelete
  getpackagedelete - use get_namespace instead


This is now official as of r11882

The line information is still off by one sometimes. Fixes are welcome.

leo

unused unimplemented opcodes

2006-03-08 Thread Leopold Toetsch 

There are some opcodes in core.ops which don't do anything:

I'd do:

  setline   ... delete, doesn't make sense
  getline   ... move to debug.ops, implement it
  setfile   ... delete
  getfile   ... mpve to debug.ops, implement it
  setpackagedelete
  getpackagedelete - use get_namespace instead

Any objections?

leo

Re: unused unimplemented opcodes

2006-03-08 Thread Steve Peters 
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 05:16:37PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
 There are some opcodes in core.ops which don't do anything:
 
 I'd do:
 
   setline   ... delete, doesn't make sense
   getline   ... move to debug.ops, implement it
   setfile   ... delete
   getfile   ... mpve to debug.ops, implement it
   setpackagedelete
   getpackagedelete - use get_namespace instead
 
 Any objections?
 

Please chainsaw away!

Steve Peters
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: unused unimplemented opcodes

2006-03-08 Thread Jonathan Worthington 

Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There are some opcodes in core.ops which don't do anything:

I'd do:

  setline   ... delete, doesn't make sense
  getline   ... move to debug.ops, implement it
  setfile   ... delete
  getfile   ... mpve to debug.ops, implement it
Where getline and getfile refer to the PIR debug seg info, right?  Anyway, 
all sounds pretty sane to me.



  setpackagedelete
  getpackagedelete - use get_namespace instead


Agree.

IMHO, etc.

Jonathan