Apparently there's been an acquisition, some soul searching, and maybe SF is
heading down a better path now:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/4n3e1s/the_state_of_sourceforge_since_its_acquisition_in/
> On Jun 12, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Craig DeForest wrote:
>
> Hear, hear! I’m all for it.
Hear, hear! I’m all for it.
> On Jun 12, 2016, at 8:41 PM, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>
> The sourceforge web set looks more and more like a ‘rent by the hour’ cheap
> hotel every time I go to it. Also there are some dodgy practices going on
> there which I don’t think we want to be associated wi
The sourceforge web set looks more and more like a ‘rent by the hour’ cheap
hotel every time I go to it. Also there are some dodgy practices going on there
which I don’t think we want to be associated with -
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2931753/open-source-software/sourceforge-the-end-cant-c
Curmedgeon away!
I think Inline::Pdlpp should be OK—I just now ran a quick test with only the
pp_def and it built and ran fine. So it seems just modules were affected by
the switch in pp_done behavior. (If Inline::Pdlpp were affected, then I would
strongly advocate changing back to the old beh
So David’s recent “ping” on the long-standing desire to propagate bad values in
the constructor got me thinking…
Right now the constructor is totally badval-ignorant. In fact, it uses the
global variable $PDL::undefval to pad PDLs, and if $PDL::undefval isn’t set, it
makes up a reasonable choi
Hey Derek,
Sorry, I was just being a curmudgeon. Do you know if it's needed with
Inline::Pdlpp, or is it automatically added? If it needs to be added, I'll
need to update the examples in the PDL::PP chapter of the book.
David
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Derek Lamb wrote:
> The fact that
The fact that pp_done() was called automatically by PP was never a documented
feature—in fact it was directly contradicted by the documentation. Sorry to
cause this headache—I didn't get any comments yea or nay on the bug report or
before the branch was merged into master. Though probably you
