Re: [PATCH] -var-update [was Re: Variable objects: references formatting]

Nick Roberts
2006-05-08T21:17:26Z

> > I think this patch works. My reasoning is one of symmetry: whatever is
> > done to val2 should also be done to val1, and that you probably don't want
> > to change the contents of val1 (hence val3). I don't know exactly what
> > coerce_array does, apart from convert the type from TYPE_CODE_REF to
> > TYPE_CODE_INT or TYPE_CODE_FLOAT or whatever, so the comment might not be
> > quite right.
>
> Is there any reason you declared a new variable instead of just saying:
>
> val1 = coerce_array (val1)
>
> ? That would make the symmetry more apparent.

I thought I had tried and it had failed. Of course, now you suggest it, it
works ;-). I had thought that maybe coerce_array kept changing val1, as it was
done for each update, but indeed it looks like the first call finds the
underlying type and further calls do nothing.

> (I don't know enough about the context to review the patch more
> substantially.)

I'm in no hurry for this one. I can re-submit later when I have more
confidence that it's right, if no-one can endorse it for me.

--
Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob