Hello Henrik,
The behaviour is not "intended" as you so nicely put it.
It is/was a bug and has been corrected in the 6.4.9-9 version.
From the ChangeLog:
2009-03-01 6.4.9-9 Cristy
* Convert returns MagickFalse for the -version option (reference
http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/
H. Langos wrote:
> Speaking of readability and code style. Is there a consensus among the
> experienced and community-minded folks in regard to the passing of
> parameters to subs? Especially when writing subs in modules?
>
> I nowadays prefer to pass parameters as one hashref
> subname({foo =
G'day J,
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:13:25AM +1000, Jacinta Richardson wrote:
> H. Langos wrote:
> FWIW,
> resetxml();
> or
> resetxml(@_); # if necessary
>
> are both many, many times preferable to:
>
> &resetxml;
>
> and the latter is generally shunned by experienced, communi
On Wed, July 1, 2009 16:13, Jacinta Richardson wrote:
> I imagine that the author didn't intend that effect of calling the
> subroutine that way.
Absolutely right.
> I suspect it's a matter of laziness.
I claim ignorance. I didn't know there was a fundamental difference
between the two ways of c
H. Langos wrote:
One more question:
Why did you use
&resetxml;
instead of
resetxml();
?
I know the former doesn't pass an empty @_ array for the called sub but
passes the existing argument list. But you don't do anything with @_ in
resetxml(). So why bother passing the current arguments
Hi Richard,
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 08:26:30PM +0200, Richard van den Berg wrote:
> On 6/19/09 11:07 AM, H. Langos wrote:
>> Maybe the merge code should only be active if your memory saving feature is
>> active?
>>
>
> Here is the new patch that does just that. I love git, it's super fast. :-)
6 matches
Mail list logo
