Re: [Oorexx-devel] Inherited methods tables

Indeed I was shocked seeing this but dared not complain (English?) Walter Von: Rick McGuire [mailto:object.r...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Montag, 09. Dezember 2013 23:39 An: Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List Betreff: [Oorexx-devel] Inherited methods tables The inherited methods section

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Build machine Status and ooRexx 4.2.0

David, That strategy makes sense to me. Thanks for clarifying exactly what is being produced. By the way, I've put the PDF docs on SourceForge. -- Mark Miesfeld On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:32 PM, David Ashley wrote: > All - > > Since we are into the 4.2.0 beta deeply now I am making the follow

[Oorexx-devel] Build machine Status and ooRexx 4.2.0

All - Since we are into the 4.2.0 beta deeply now I am making the following changes to the daily builds. ooRexx Interpreter builds - the input for these will be the 4.2.0 branch of the interpreter - the output will be placed in the release-candidates subdir on the Build Machine o

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Doc error messages

I don't think it was ever an automatic process. David used to grab the new file "periodically" and update the doc build. I was about to update these when I discovered that the publican versions are a little different. I really appears the differences are eliminated to removing bits from the fron

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Inherited methods tables

That part wasn't my major object, it was rather with the individual methods in the list. Each method displays something like: new (class method) (Section 5.1.1.1, “new (Class Method)”) instanceMethod (Section 5.1.1.11, “instanceMethod”) send (Section 5.1.1.19, “send”) The formatting was lost on

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Doc error messages

Rick, I think when the build is done, it produces a .sgml file. I had thought that, that file was then transferred to the doc book source files for producing the error messages. I think it used to be done that way, and the process was dropped over the years. -- Mark Miesfeld On Mon, Dec 9, 2

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Inherited methods tables

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Rick McGuire wrote: > The inherited methods section of the classes are horribly mangled in the > publican version. Is it possible to just make each method name a hot link > without the section information and the repeated method name? > Yes, it is possible, but

[Oorexx-devel] Doc error messages

Just noticed that the error messages in the docs are really out of date. I also notice that they are different from the versions that are automatically generated in the build...the biggest difference appears to be the removal of the copyright block comment and the various DOCBOOK processing instru

Re: [Oorexx-devel] What branch should doc updates be applied to?

I'm seeing there might be quite a few. I'm thinking one large merge of the changes might be a better idea. Rick On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Mark Miesfeld wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Rick McGuire wrote: > >> Spotted some typos in the rexx ref already. Should these correctio

Re: [Oorexx-devel] What branch should doc updates be applied to?

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Rick McGuire wrote: > Spotted some typos in the rexx ref already. Should these corrections be > applied to the trunk, or the branch+trunk? > At this point I think they need to be applied to both, just like a bug fix would need to be applied to both. Of course if

Re: [Oorexx-devel] What branch should doc updates be applied to?

Rick, I intend to re-do everything that I had submitted as [patches:#180]some months ago (which has been applied to 4.1.3 only, and not to 4.2) also for 4.2 within the next few days. That should weed out most of the typos and a lot more. Erich On Mo

[Oorexx-devel] Inherited methods tables

The inherited methods section of the classes are horribly mangled in the publican version. Is it possible to just make each method name a hot link without the section information and the repeated method name? Rick -- Spon

[Oorexx-devel] What branch should doc updates be applied to?

Spotted some typos in the rexx ref already. Should these corrections be applied to the trunk, or the branch+trunk? Rick -- Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.

Re: [Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2.0 Docs

That's the one I saw as well. David Ashley On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 13:46 -0800, Mark Miesfeld wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:41 PM, David Ashley > wrote: > > I did not load the zip file to SF. Instead I put it in the > release-candidates subdir on the Build Machine.

Re: [Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2.0 Docs

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:41 PM, David Ashley wrote: > > I did not load the zip file to SF. Instead I put it in the > release-candidates subdir on the Build Machine. The zip file does NOT > contain the oodguide.pdf file so you can just add yours to it and upload > it to SF. > Okay, good. I'll upl

[Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2.0 Docs

Mark - I did not load the zip file to SF. Instead I put it in the release-candidates subdir on the Build Machine. The zip file does NOT contain the oodguide.pdf file so you can just add yours to it and upload it to SF. Please note that there are a some errors in these docs. I saw at least one war

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Announcing ooRexx 4.2.0 Beta 1

Hi, Bug created: https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/bugs/1220/ Thanks!!! 2013/12/9 Mark Miesfeld > We can fix the first one. Can you open a bug for them. Just put in the > warning text. > > hostemu is mostly David's area. He can decide how he wants to handle it. > > -- > Mark Miesfeld > > >

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Announcing ooRexx 4.2.0 Beta 1

We can fix the first one. Can you open a bug for them. Just put in the warning text. hostemu is mostly David's area. He can decide how he wants to handle it. -- Mark Miesfeld On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Perry Werneck wrote: > Hi, > > It´s the only errors for now. Probably it will show

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Announcing ooRexx 4.2.0 Beta 1

Hi, It´s the only errors for now. Probably it will show a few other warning when they´re fixed because the package build just stops with this erros. I was able to "fix" the second error just adding a "return 0;" line in the last line of the affected method (not sure if it´s the right thing to do

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Announcing ooRexx 4.2.0 Beta 1

The first warning about strncat() is correct. The code does open up a possible buffer overflow. The second warning is valid on the face of it, it is possible to return from the non-void function without returning an explicit value. But, I think cmdparse.ypp is produced by lex (or flex.) I'm not

[Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2 beta Linux builds finished

All - The ooRexx 4.2.0 beta builds for Linux have finished. They will be uploaded to SourceForge tonight but in the meantime they can be found here: http://build.oorexx.org/builds/release-candidates/ The docs are building now and should be finished in about 30 minutes. They also should be on Sou

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Announcing ooRexx 4.2.0 Beta 1

Hi, I got a few errors during the validation of the OpenSUSE install package for the ooRexx 4.2.0 beta: [ 189s] I: *Statement might be overflowing a buffer in strncat.* Common mistake: [ 189s]BAD: strncat(buffer,charptr,sizeof(buffer)) is wrong, it takes the left over size as 3rd argument [

Re: [Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2 Docs

That sounds good David. -- Mark Miesfeld On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:57 AM, David Ashley wrote: > That sounds like a plan. > > I was going to put a zip file on SF that just contained the PDFs. What I > will do is put up one that does NOT contain the ooDailog doc and let you > replace my zip with

Re: [Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2 Docs

That sounds like a plan. I was going to put a zip file on SF that just contained the PDFs. What I will do is put up one that does NOT contain the ooDailog doc and let you replace my zip with one that includes ooDialog. I will send out a note when I have the docs uploaded. David Ashley On Mon, 2

Re: [Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2 Docs

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:38 AM, David Ashley wrote: > All - > > Have there been any changes to the trunk for the docs since the branch > was created this morning? David, The doc for ooDialog in trunk is for ooDialog 4.2.4. The ooDialog in 4.2.0 is 4.2.3. After the branch, I fixed up the ooDi

Re: [Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2 Docs

I've not made any changes. Rick On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:38 PM, David Ashley wrote: > All - > > Have there been any changes to the trunk for the docs since the branch > was created this morning? If not, at the end of the beta builds in about > 2 hours I will build the 4.2 docs from the trunk (s

[Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2 Docs

All - Have there been any changes to the trunk for the docs since the branch was created this morning? If not, at the end of the beta builds in about 2 hours I will build the 4.2 docs from the trunk (since I am set up to do that at the moment). If that is not acceptable please let me know. David

[Oorexx-devel] Linux 4.2.0 Beta Builds

All - Well what do you know. My automated process for building the Linux betas actually worked the first time I tried it on a test VM. I am currently running it on all the VMs now. The run should be finished in about 4 hours. I will need to rename them before I upload them to SourceForge so they w

Re: [Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2.0 beta and the Build Machine

All - Humm, I am not sure if we should hold off or not. I do not mind producing multiple betas once I get the automated process working so maybe we should go ahead an go with what we have. David Ashley On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 09:27 -0500, Rick McGuire wrote: > David, if we have bug fixes, should w

Re: [Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2.0 beta and the Build Machine

David, if we have bug fixes, should we hold off on integrating them into the beta branch until that process is sorted out? Rick On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:24 AM, David Ashley wrote: > All - > > Over the next few days or so I will produce the Linux install files for > the ooRexx 4.2.0 beta. This m

[Oorexx-devel] ooRexx 4.2.0 beta and the Build Machine

All - Over the next few days or so I will produce the Linux install files for the ooRexx 4.2.0 beta. This might take some time so be patient. The are now about 52 operating systems that I need to create install files for. I have the process somewhat automated but I have never tested the process so

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Question ad new .debuginpurt and .traceoutput monitors

Yeah, looks like a bug to me...as is the fact that debug mode doesn't appear to be using them. Rick On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > ooRexx 4.2.0 introduces two new monitor objects, .debuginput and > .traceoutput. > > In the current beta their destination object is .n

[Oorexx-devel] Question ad new .debuginpurt and .traceoutput monitors

ooRexx 4.2.0 introduces two new monitor objects, .debuginput and .traceoutput. In the current beta their destination object is .nil, hence messages directed at them usually raise an unknown method condition, like: F:\work\svn\bsf4oorexx\trunk\bsf4oorexx\install>rexxtry REXX-ooRexx_4.2.0(