Re: [PATCH] Last assault on binary-process-output
- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2004 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2003 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2002 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2001 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2000 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1999 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1998 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
"Kirill 'Big K' Katsnelson" <kkm(a)dtmx.com> writes:
One correction, I am going to remove this variable by release time,
not obsolete it.
Are you sure that's a good idea? Do you think there's code that
depends on it?
Maybe we could use the dontusethis- stuff to support it during the
transition period.
Andy Piper
Friday, 28 January
Fri, 28 Jan
10:59 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] Last assault on binary-process-output
At 09:01 AM 1/28/00 +0100, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
"Kirill 'Big K' Katsnelson" <kkm(a)dtmx.com>
writes:
> One correction, I am going to remove this variable by release time,
> not obsolete it.
Are you sure that's a good idea? Do you think there's code that
depends on it?
Maybe we could use the dontusethis- stuff to support it during the
transition period.
I would like to see it go in its entirety so that we can remove the C goop
that goes with it.
andy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Andy Piper
Senior Consultant Architect, BEA Systems Ltd
Kirill 'Big K' Katsnelson
Friday, 28 January
Fri, 28 Jan
8:48 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] Last assault on binary-process-output
Some time ago, Hrvoje Niksic wrote...
"Kirill 'Big K' Katsnelson" <kkm(a)dtmx.com>
writes:
> One correction, I am going to remove this variable by release time,
> not obsolete it.
Are you sure that's a good idea? Do you think there's code that
depends on it?
Code cannot depend on it: This variable is to be bound, not set by
design. If changing the value of this variable changes really nothing,
then the following binding is really a no-op:
(let ((binary-process-output sometihng)) (do-this and that))
Code can depend on its *functionality* but not on its *existence*.
Big K
8855
days inactive
8855
days old
2 comments
3 participants
tags (0)
participants (3)
-
Andy Piper -
Hrvoje Niksic -
Kirill 'Big K' Katsnelson