Tony Mechelynck | 5 Sep 03:44 2007
Picon

Re: Patch for if_perl.xs


Suresh Govindachar wrote:
> 
> 
> Patch for if_perl.xs attached below.
> 
> --Suresh
> 
> 
>   *** vim7\src\if_perl.xs	Tue Sep 04 17:12:39 2007
>   --- patched\if_perl.xs	Tue Sep 04 16:28:12 2007
>   ***************
>   *** 40,45 ****
>   --- 40,67 ----
>     #    define PERL_SUBVERSION SUBVERSION
>     #endif
>     
>   + /* 
>   +  * Quoting Jan Dubois of Active State: 
>   +  *
>   +  *    ActivePerl build 822 still identifies itself as 5.8.8 but already
>   +  *    contains many of the changes from the upcoming Perl 5.8.9 release.
>   +  *    
>   +  * The changes include addition of two symbols (Perl_sv_2iv_flags, 
>   +  * Perl_newXS_flags) introduced in not present in earlier releases.
>   +  *
>   +  * Jan Dubois suggested the following guarding scheme:
>   +  *
>   +  */
>   + #if (ACTIVEPERL_VERSION >= 822)
(Continue reading)

Suresh Govindachar | 5 Sep 04:04 2007
Picon

RE: Patch for if_perl.xs


  Tony asked:
  > Suresh Govindachar wrote:
  >>
  >> + #if (ACTIVEPERL_VERSION >= 822)
  >> + #  define PERL589_OR_LATER
  >> + #endif
  >> + #if (PERL_REVISION == 5) && (PERL_VERSION == 8) && (PERL_SUBVERSION >= 9)
  >> + #  define PERL589_OR_LATER
  >> + #endif
  >> + #if (PERL_REVISION == 5) && (PERL_VERSION >= 10)
  > 
  > -------------------------------------------------^
  > shouldn't this be (PERL_VERSION >= 9)?  
  > Otherwise Perl 5.9.x won't be regarded as "5.8.9 or later"

  Good catch but I think there is something about perl's 
  version's middle number being even always.  Or it is the 
  case that there will not be any 5.9 at all.  

  (I heard that both 5.8.9 and 5.10 are expected in a few months
   http://www.slideshare.net/acme/whats-new-in-perl-510 .)

  --Suresh

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

(Continue reading)

Tony Mechelynck | 5 Sep 04:35 2007
Picon

Re: Patch for if_perl.xs


Suresh Govindachar wrote:
>   Tony asked:
>   > Suresh Govindachar wrote:
>   >>
>   >> + #if (ACTIVEPERL_VERSION >= 822)
>   >> + #  define PERL589_OR_LATER
>   >> + #endif
>   >> + #if (PERL_REVISION == 5) && (PERL_VERSION == 8) && (PERL_SUBVERSION >= 9)
>   >> + #  define PERL589_OR_LATER
>   >> + #endif
>   >> + #if (PERL_REVISION == 5) && (PERL_VERSION >= 10)
>   > 
>   > -------------------------------------------------^
>   > shouldn't this be (PERL_VERSION >= 9)?  
>   > Otherwise Perl 5.9.x won't be regarded as "5.8.9 or later"
>  
>   Good catch but I think there is something about perl's 
>   version's middle number being even always.  Or it is the 
>   case that there will not be any 5.9 at all.  
> 
>   (I heard that both 5.8.9 and 5.10 are expected in a few months
>    http://www.slideshare.net/acme/whats-new-in-perl-510 .)
> 
>   --Suresh
> 
> 
> 

well, (PERL_VERSION > 8) then? Some versioning schemes use even numbers for 
(Continue reading)


Gmane