Pike-devel May 2008

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

10 participants
57 discussions

full MySQL 4.x support. or pike roadmap
by thomas.gusenleitner＠com-bet.com ＠ Pike developers forum 01 Mar '26

01 Mar '26

HI to all! mysql 4.x support works only with a mysql CFLAGS=-DUSE_OLD_FUNCTIONS is this correct ? are there plans to make a full 4.x support ? bye, thomas

4 4

Re: Playing music using pike and SDL.
by Martin Nilsson (lvl 60) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 21 Jan '26

21 Jan '26

Were you not able to get any C code to play through SDL either? Does your SDL library have a mixer compiled in it (I think it is optional)?

4 3

Process.run
by Peter Bortas (nu med mindre Opera) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 15 Jul '08

15 Jul '08

I just checked in a Process.run() in 7.7: http://pike.ida.liu.se/development/cvs/diff.xml?module=Pike&file=7.7/lib/mo… The rational for that is that I was once again reminded by a user this week that getting Process.create_process() or Process.Process right without some corner case blocking is hard. It's not obvious that if you bind pipes to booth stderr and stdout you have to take in to account that OS buffers are not limetless. Process.run() is a thin wrapper around Process.Process that collects stdout, stderr and exitcode and return them in a mapping. This could potentially result in huge strings, but will do what most users want and even already do when they call create_process() with both pipes bound. Something like this should be in 7.8, but I'm open to suggestions for other things that might be usefull to return in the mapping or for changing member names.

5 7

Nettle
by Magnus Holmgren, Millnet AB (nu med fast anst�llning) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 17 Jun '08

17 Jun '08

Could you upgrade the bundled version of Nettle to 1.15, which among other things, gets rid of a non-free RFC?

4 7

pike version numbering
by Martin Bähr 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

hi, since i have seen a few references to pike version 7.10 i'd like to discuss the current versioning scheme. i'd like to suggest that the next version is numbered as pike 8. the main reason for that is that if we continue with 7.10, 7.12, etc, we will NEVER reach a state where the changes are large enough to get to pike 8 because after 7.10 and further switching to 8 will create expectations where pike 8 would be significantly different from pike 7. in other words: 7.8, 7.10 then will be our major versions, and the 7 in front would become rather meaningless. a succession like 7.6, 7.8, 8.0 seems natural and won't surprise anyone. ie: no one will expect a huge set of changes there. on the other hand the changes from 7.6 to 7.8 seem quite significant (syntax additions like getters and setters, etc) already, that i even think it may be waranted to go directly from 7.6 to 8. in any case however, we should never go to 7.10. greetings, martin.

3 2

Blocks inside expressions
by Martin Nilsson (Opera Mini - AFK!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

That points towards the lack of need for inlined expression blocks, but it may just be that people have been conscious about the lambda overhead or thought a function would be more apropriate.

1 0

Blocks inside expressions
by Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS ＠ Pike developers forum 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

Aha, cute. Yes, that use would be exclusive with this one, unfortunately.

1 0

Blocks inside expressions
by Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS ＠ Pike developers forum 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

I don't know. What would these generators be?

1 0

Blocks inside expressions
by Mirar ＠ Pike developers forum 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

Sounds good to me. Is that keyword used?

2 1

Blocks inside expressions
by Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS ＠ Pike developers forum 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

Not only, as said. It seems like a waste of time to fix inlining of that particular kind of lambdas (and I think it wouldn't be nearly as simple as this) when the end result is only less versatile and clumsier to write. Other kinds of lambdas, like e.g. those commonly used with map() and filter() would still not be possible to inline, btw. For that to work we'd have to change map(), filter(), etc to special builtin constructs.

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel May 2008