Ticket #850 (new patch)

Opened 5 years ago

Last modified 5 years ago

Handle loadlib and libraries with '.' in the name

Reported by: jkeenan Owned by: whiteknight
Priority: normal Milestone:
Component: library Version: 1.3.0
Severity: medium Keywords:
Cc: Whiteknight chromatic Language:
Patch status: new Platform:

Description

This ticket originally appeared in RT on Sep 23 2005 as  RT #32758, a submission by Ross McFarland. It has not been resolved. chromatic looked at it in June 2008, noting that the latest version of the patch submitted by Ross did not synch up properly with our source code.

The original ticket cited  an extensive discussion on the old perl6-internals list.

This ticket was mentioned by  Whiteknight in his blog, also available on  planet.parrotcode (July 17).

I am moving this ticket to Trac. I am attaching what I think was the last version of the patch submitted in the RT.

Could someone -- particularly someone on Win32 -- take a look at this and determine:

1. Is there still a problem needing resolution?

2. Can the patch be reworked to provide a solution?

Thank you very much.

kid51

Attachments

loadlib_dots.patch Download (13.5 KB) - added by jkeenan 5 years ago.
Final (?) version of patch submitted by Ross McFarland in Sept 2005

Change History

Changed 5 years ago by jkeenan

Final (?) version of patch submitted by Ross McFarland in Sept 2005

in reply to: ↑ description   Changed 5 years ago by jkeenan

Replying to jkeenan:

> 
> Could someone -- particularly someone on Win32 -- 
take a look at this and determine:
> 
> 1.  Is there still a problem needing resolution?
> 
> 2.  Can the patch be reworked to provide a solution?

Can anyone comment? Thanks.

  Changed 5 years ago by whiteknight

  • owner set to whiteknight

follow-up: ↓ 4   Changed 5 years ago by whiteknight

Before I start monkeying with this patch, do we even know for certain that there is still a problem with loading libraries that have a dot in the file name? Can we get a test case?

in reply to: ↑ 3   Changed 5 years ago by jkeenan

Replying to whiteknight:

> Before I start monkeying with this patch, do we even know 
> for certain that there is still a problem with loading 
> libraries that have a dot in the file name? Can we get a test case?

My thinking is: If you have to ask that question, and if no one has complained about this in a long time, then we don't have a problem that needs addressing now.

Recommendation: closing the ticket and having whoever experiences this problem open up a new one.

Thank you very much.
kid51

  Changed 5 years ago by coke

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Parrot <parrot-tickets@lists.parrot.org> wrote:
> #850: Handle loadlib and libraries with '.' in the name
> ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  jkeenan  |       Owner:  whiteknight
>     Type:  patch    |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  normal   |   Milestone:
> Component:  library  |     Version:  1.3.0
>  Severity:  medium   |    Keywords:
>     Lang:           |       Patch:  new
>  Platform:           |
> ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
>
> Comment(by jkeenan):
>
>  Replying to [comment:3 whiteknight]:
>  {{{
>  > Before I start monkeying with this patch, do we even know
>  > for certain that there is still a problem with loading
>  > libraries that have a dot in the file name? Can we get a test case?
>  }}}
>  My thinking is:  If you have to ask that question, and if no one has
>  complained about this in a long time, then we don't have a problem that
>  needs addressing now.
>
>  Recommendation: closing the ticket and having whoever experiences this
>  problem open up a new one.
>
>  Thank you very much.[[BR]]
>  kid51
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/ticket/850#comment:4>
> Parrot <https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/>
> Parrot Development
> _______________________________________________
> parrot-tickets mailing list
> parrot-tickets@lists.parrot.org
> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-tickets
>

-1: If someone opens a ticket, we shouldn't throw it out for the sole
reason that it took us 4.5 years to get to it. (Sure, lots can happen
in 4.5 years, but I don't see any of those mitigating factors here.)

If there isn't a test for this in the repository, we should add one to
avoid regressions. Then we can close the ticket as WFM.



-- 
Will "Coke" Coleda

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.