Please note:The SCons wiki is now restored from the attack in March 2013. All old passwords have been invalidated. Please reset your password if you have an account. If you note missing pages, please report them to webmaster@scons.org. Also, new account creation is currently disabled due to an ongoing spam flood (2013/08/27).
   1 17:08:02 *	Jason_at_intel (n=chatzill@bementil-116.illinois.prairieinet.net) has joined #scons
   2 17:13:52 *	garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   3 17:24:15 *	GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
   4 17:24:17 <GregNoel>	Hi, Gary; I'm here, too; we can start as soon as Steven arrives
   5 17:24:26 <garyo-home>	Hi, Greg.
   6 17:25:03 <Jason_at_intel>	hi all
   7 17:25:09 <garyo-home>	Hi, Jason.
   8 17:25:12 <GregNoel>	I see you've been marking up the spreadsheet; good work.
   9 17:25:25 <garyo-home>	Just barely in time :-)
  10 17:25:45 <GregNoel>	Better than trying to do it on the fly.
  11 17:26:04 <garyo-home>	yup
  12 17:32:04 <GregNoel>	Where are you, Steven?
  13 17:34:47 <garyo-home>	Since Steven's not here yet, Greg I'll ask you about 2357 and ListLike.  Is that mostly like CLVar?
  14 17:35:48 <GregNoel>	Mostly, but the devil is in the details.  I'm proposing that once you mark a variable as list-like, it can't be overridden by assignment.
  15 17:36:14 <garyo-home>	That sounds cool, is it doable in python?
  16 17:36:40 <GregNoel>	(And I'm proposing a newCLVar class with slightly different semantics)
  17 17:36:55 <GregNoel>	Well, it's doable, but I don't yet know about fast.
  18 17:37:24 <Jason_at_intel>	Can i ask what teh point of CLVar is ?
  19 17:37:36 <garyo-home>	I do like the env.ListLike(key) rather than env['KEY'] = CLVar()
  20 17:38:22 <GregNoel>	My thought was to make _dict a class rather than a dict, and then use property() to catch the assignments.
  21 17:38:33 <garyo-home>	CLVar is a list that uses Split() to split an initial string along
  22 17:38:35 <garyo-home>	white-space arguments, and similarly to split any strings that get
  23 17:38:36 <garyo-home>	added.  This allows us to Do the Right Thing with Append() and
  24 17:38:38 <garyo-home>	Prepend() (as well as straight Python foo = env['VAR'] + 'arg1
  25 17:38:39 <garyo-home>	arg2') regardless of whether a user adds a list or a string to a
  26 17:38:41 <garyo-home>	command-line construction variable.
  27 17:38:42 <GregNoel>	I've mocked up something that _almost_ works, but I haven't timed it.
  28 17:39:11 <garyo-home>	Greg: I see, that sounds workable (not that I understand the details)
  29 17:39:41 <GregNoel>	Neither to I; that's why it _almost_ works. {;-}
  30 17:39:42 <Jason_at_intel>	ahh.. I have been just using it as a list .. ie env['LINKFLAGS'].extend([stuff...])
  31 17:39:43 <garyo-home>	Greg: notice that CLVar already has quoting issues.  Quoting rears its ugly head again!
  32 17:40:28 <GregNoel>	Yep, newCLVar is part of the SubstQuoteEscape, et.al., proposal
  33 17:40:37 <garyo-home>	Jason: part of the problem is that not everything is a CLVar, and the other part as Greg said is that assigning to it kills the CLVarness.
  34 17:40:43 <garyo-home>	Greg: good.
  35 17:41:27 <Jason_at_intel>	I see, will this require python 3.0 ( the need to use properties)
  36 17:41:40 <GregNoel>	2.2
  37 17:41:55 <Jason_at_intel>	2.2 has properties?
  38 17:42:06 <GregNoel>	yup
  39 17:42:08 <Jason_at_intel>	must have missed that
  40 17:42:26 <Jason_at_intel>	learn something new.. how do you say it?
  41 17:42:37 <sohail>	doesn't Python have the __assign__ function
  42 17:42:54 <sohail>	or not
  43 17:42:56 <GregNoel>	sohail, not on variables
  44 17:42:58 *	sohail goes back to idling
  45 17:43:22 <garyo-home>	Hi Sohail!
  46 17:43:37 <sohail>	hi garyo-home !
  47 17:43:42 <GregNoel>	Steven, where are you?
  48 17:43:55 <garyo-home>	the $64,000 question.
  49 17:43:59 *	sohail is actually now being called to DINNER!!!!!!!! bbl
  50 17:44:59 <garyo-home>	If Steven doesn't show up, should we just enter the consensus ones for now and reconvene later in the week?
  51 17:48:00 <GregNoel>	garyo-home, re Steven, yes, let's whip through what we can.
  52 17:48:43 *	GregNoel brb
  53 17:48:43 <garyo-home>	Greg: yes, it's getting late, let's just accept the obvious ones.
  54 17:49:06 <GregNoel>	1752 is first; brb
  55 17:49:55 <garyo-home>	1752: not obvious, but everyone seems to say 2.x p3 stevenknight so that's it.
  56 17:50:49 <GregNoel>	(I'm back) done
  57 17:51:06 <garyo-home>	2124: azverkan ok w/ you Greg?
  58 17:51:08 <GregNoel>	2124: TaskmasterNG should make it easy to use worker threads for something like this, but it should be selectable, since it's not needed on a Real Operating System(TM)
  59 17:51:32 <garyo-home>	worker threads may be faster in all cases though.
  60 17:51:40 <garyo-home>	anyway, 2.x p3 azverkan?
  61 17:51:46 <Jason_at_intel>	what is the issue here?
  62 17:52:02 <GregNoel>	Yes, Brandon should be fine, although we should check with him, since he took so long to research it.
  63 17:52:04 <garyo-home>	Jason: you'll have to read it, it's complicated.
  64 17:52:22 <garyo-home>	race conditions.
  65 17:52:22 <Jason_at_intel>	ok.. have threading background ( to much of it)
  66 17:52:40 <garyo-home>	you'll love reading the bug report then :-)(
  67 17:52:55 <garyo-home>	ok, let's say 2124 is done then.
  68 17:52:46 <GregNoel>	1594, 1849 consensus +java
  69 17:53:03 <garyo-home>	greg: agreed.
  70 17:53:25 <garyo-home>	1874: I'll document it, why not.
  71 17:53:37 <GregNoel>	done, more power to you
  72 17:53:43 <garyo-home>	anytime p5 garyo
  73 17:54:04 <GregNoel>	1905, I think it needs a higher priority if it's going in future.
  74 17:54:10 <garyo-home>	1905: is StarMerge needed for your idea, or does it just make it better?
  75 17:54:38 <GregNoel>	I think it should be a separate issue (in fact, split in three)
  76 17:54:47 <garyo-home>	If it's yours you can pick a priority.
  77 17:54:56 <GregNoel>	p2 then; done
  78 17:55:26 <garyo-home>	1970: I don't have ideas on the keyword name yet
  79 17:55:38 <GregNoel>	1970, I think we need Steven for this one
  80 17:55:43 <garyo-home>	ok, leave it.
  81 17:55:49 <GregNoel>	next time it is
  82 17:56:09 <garyo-home>	2153: steven 1.3/2.0/2.1 p2, pick one?
  83 17:56:26 <garyo-home>	I presume he means try for 1.3, else ...
  84 17:56:35 <Jason_at_intel>	I think this is part of the VS revamp
  85 17:56:44 <GregNoel>	I like 2.1 or even 2.2, since 1.3 is already too full and 2.0 is just for the conversion
  86 17:56:47 <garyo-home>	2153?  I don't think so
  87 17:56:55 <garyo-home>	Greg: agreed.
  88 17:56:58 <garyo-home>	2.1 is fine.
  89 17:57:02 <Jason_at_intel>	it effect the mslink
  90 17:57:07 <GregNoel>	done
  91 17:57:21 <garyo-home>	mslink uses it, but it's its own separate thing really.
  92 17:57:42 <GregNoel>	2288, invalid, consensus
  93 17:57:42 <Jason_at_intel>	agreed on that.. I guess patches show it can be worked around
  94 17:57:59 <garyo-home>	2288 invalid
  95 17:58:23 <Jason_at_intel>	2288 is a misunderstand of what Install() does
  96 17:58:23 <GregNoel>	2291, need Steven, since he's the 'compat' expert
  97 17:58:55 <garyo-home>	2291: defer
  98 17:59:02 <GregNoel>	done
  99 17:59:28 <garyo-home>	2351: Greg you're right it hasn't bit anyone that we know of, but still it's really wrong.
 100 17:59:52 <Jason_at_intel>	windows is case insentitive, but
 101 17:59:58 <Jason_at_intel>	case preserving
 102 18:00:13 <garyo-home>	I think all it needs is a _dict that has the right semantics.
 103 18:00:15 <GregNoel>	True, but 2.x is _very_ crowded; we have to start cutting some
 104 18:00:19 <Jason_at_intel>	if the case is lost certain programs can get upset
 105 18:00:40 <garyo-home>	jason: right, preserve the case, just case-fold the comparisons.
 106 18:00:58 <garyo-home>	Greg: I see your point.
 107 18:01:20 <garyo-home>	Maybe you're right, 3.x is OK.
 108 18:01:36 <GregNoel>	I don't have a WAG about how much effort it would take, so I'm erring on the conservative side
 109 18:01:36 <garyo-home>	Wish we had more devs.
 110 18:01:59 <GregNoel>	garyo-home, concur, more devs needed badly
 111 18:01:56 <garyo-home>	A half a day here, half a day there adds up to a lot.
 112 18:02:17 <GregNoel>	"A million here, a million there..."
 113 18:02:25 <garyo-home>	:-)
 114 18:02:36 <GregNoel>	Let's defer it
 115 18:02:44 <garyo-home>	I'm ok w/ that
 116 18:02:49 <GregNoel>	done
 117 18:03:00 <GregNoel>	2352, consensus
 118 18:03:06 <garyo-home>	2352 1.3 p2 steven (+vs_revamp)
 119 18:03:28 <Jason_at_intel>	Steven is workign on it.. last he said he want to factor out if statements
 120 18:03:32 <Jason_at_intel>	talked about how to do it
 121 18:03:36 <GregNoel>	Good point, +vs_revamp
 122 18:03:41 <Jason_at_intel>	I think he has it under control
 123 18:03:53 <garyo-home>	I'll be happy to help retest
 124 18:03:58 <garyo-home>	2353 is really simple
 125 18:04:08 <GregNoel>	2353, who?
 126 18:04:33 <garyo-home>	me I guess.
 127 18:04:46 <GregNoel>	OK, if you're sure.
 128 18:05:02 <garyo-home>	can't be hard, just need to get the time.
 129 18:05:24 <GregNoel>	"Ask me for anything except time..."
 130 18:05:37 <garyo-home>	Nice quote, who's that from?
 131 18:05:43 <GregNoel>	2.x or 2.1?
 132 18:05:47 <garyo-home>	2.x.
 133 18:05:51 <GregNoel>	done
 134 18:06:12 <garyo-home>	2354, +toolchain and defer?
 135 18:06:44 <GregNoel>	2354, yes: I'll look up what the other toolchain issues are
 136 18:06:53 <GregNoel>	for milestone and priority
 137 18:06:59 <Jason_at_intel>	why assume it exists?
 138 18:07:19 <GregNoel>	2355, defer
 139 18:07:26 <garyo-home>	jason: are you talking about 2355?  Yes, defer.
 140 18:07:34 <Jason_at_intel>	54
 141 18:07:41 <GregNoel>	done
 142 18:07:44 <garyo-home>	Sorry, 2354!
 143 18:07:59 <GregNoel>	2356, consensus
 144 18:08:06 <Jason_at_intel>	yes ... 2355 was quick to resolve
 145 18:08:36 <garyo-home>	2356 agreed.
 146 18:08:46 <GregNoel>	done
 147 18:08:57 <garyo-home>	2357, Greg I think you're the man here.
 148 18:09:22 <GregNoel>	Yeah, I'm afraid so, but it needs a bit of discussion.  Let's defer it.
 149 18:09:26 <garyo-home>	ok.
 150 18:11:55 <GregNoel>	garyo-home, "anything except time" is Napoleon; missed the question above
 151 18:12:10 <garyo-home>	cool.
 152 18:10:01 <garyo-home>	2358: I like the +swig keyword, otherwise 2.1 p2 swig-expert
 153 18:10:23 <GregNoel>	2358, +swig, but 2.1 would need a draft choice
 154 18:10:41 <garyo-home>	(Might not actually require swig knowledge, just create the dir first or something)
 155 18:10:44 <garyo-home>	ok, 2.x?
 156 18:11:02 <GregNoel>	We made the +java future p1; I think that's reasonable; pull them in when the expert shows up
 157 18:11:51 <garyo-home>	usually I'd agree, but this issue may not really need a swig expert.
 158 18:13:28 <GregNoel>	I think it does require SWIG knowledge.  The last patch I almost applied would have made a mess, but somebody showed up who knew that the .wrap.c file was created only if there was a certain option in the .i file
 159 18:11:54 <Jason_at_intel>	agreed.. the compiler can do different thing here
 160 18:13:59 <garyo-home>	hmm, who was that?
 161 18:14:29 <GregNoel>	I was looking earlier; I've lost the name.
 162 18:12:48 <garyo-home>	for instance, the swig builder could just get a "mkdir -p $OUTDIR" prepended.
 163 18:13:06 <garyo-home>	I'm not volunteering, just saying it might work.
 164 18:13:21 <garyo-home>	(sorry, $SWIGOUTDIR).
 165 18:14:28 <garyo-home>	well anyway, I guess I'm ok with future p1 +swig.
 166 18:15:00 <GregNoel>	Your point is good; I'm changing my mind.
 167 18:15:15 <GregNoel>	Give it to me as research and I'll try harder to find the name.
 168 18:15:24 <garyo-home>	ok, that works for me.
 169 18:15:28 <GregNoel>	done
 170 18:15:49 <GregNoel>	2359, consensus, +java
 171 18:15:56 <garyo-home>	yes
 172 18:16:44 <GregNoel>	2361 also needs some research, but I don't think I'm the guy
 173 18:16:44 <garyo-home>	2361: my temptation is do nothing and hope toolchain removes this issue.
 174 18:17:12 <GregNoel>	That could work, too, but when are we getting to the toolchain work?
 175 18:17:00 <garyo-home>	let's defer that one for tonight.
 176 18:17:18 <GregNoel>	defer works for me
 177 18:17:29 <garyo-home>	grumble...
 178 18:17:40 <garyo-home>	ok defer for now.
 179 18:17:48 <GregNoel>	done
 180 18:18:13 <GregNoel>	2362, wow, last one; it really helps to do the research in advance...
 181 18:18:11 <garyo-home>	2362: I think Steven is the best one for that.
 182 18:18:15 <garyo-home>	So let's defer it.
 183 18:18:22 <GregNoel>	done
 184 18:18:38 <garyo-home>	ok, well done.
 185 18:18:45 <GregNoel>	agree
 186 18:18:50 <garyo-home>	I'm guessing Steven forgot about us.
 187 18:19:13 <GregNoel>	maybe; he did update the spreadsheet.
 188 18:19:25 <GregNoel>	Let's contact him and see if we can resume tomorrow?
 189 18:19:38 <garyo-home>	I think I can do that, especially if it's not too long.
 190 18:19:53 <garyo-home>	I'll email him and cc release.
 191 18:20:06 <GregNoel>	Should be short; I think we deferred only five issues.
 192 18:20:15 <GregNoel>	works for me
 193 18:20:19 <Jason_at_intel>	ok
 194 18:20:35 <garyo-home>	good.  Hope to see you then.
 195 18:20:59 <GregNoel>	yep, see you then.  I'm off to do some shopping for a party
 196 18:21:13 <garyo-home>	have fun!
 197 18:22:10 <GregNoel>	It ought to be; it's a surprise anniversary party; over 50 people from all over the country are attending, unknown to the victims
 198 18:22:31 *	GregNoel has been marked as being away
 199 18:22:49 <garyo-home>	Greg: wow, sounds amazing.
 200 18:23:04 <Jason_at_intel>	hope the paty goes well
 201 18:25:57 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@c-67-164-61-68.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
 202 18:26:07 <stevenknight>	anyone still here?
 203 18:26:41 <garyo-home>	Hi Steven!
 204 18:26:42 <Jason_at_intel>	yep.. we are still here .. greg might have left
 205 18:26:45 <stevenknight>	hey
 206 18:26:54 <garyo-home>	see my email just now?
 207 18:27:05 <stevenknight>	sorry for not being here, the wife has a migraine today
 208 18:27:13 <stevenknight>	no, haven't checked email yet
 209 18:27:19 <garyo-home>	ouch, they are really awful.
 210 18:27:34 <garyo-home>	My daughter gets them once in a while.
 211 18:27:35 <Jason_at_intel>	ya... my wife gets them... I understand
 212 18:27:38 <stevenknight>	i had to pick up the afternoon duties
 213 18:27:46 <stevenknight>	child pick up, etc.
 214 18:27:57 <garyo-home>	understood.  Can we finish up the bug party tomorrow night at the usual time?
 215 18:28:06 <stevenknight>	that should work
 216 18:28:07 <GregNoel>	Wait,
 217 18:28:12 <stevenknight>	hey greg
 218 18:28:16 <stevenknight>	at least for me
 219 18:28:36 <GregNoel>	Hi, just happened to be passing through the office to grab something and saw you had arrived.
 220 18:29:03 <stevenknight>	yeah, family matters intervened; sorry
 221 18:29:49 <GregNoel>	It's OK; I can stay a few more minutes, but I need to leave shortly.  I didn't keep a list of the issues we bypassed; did you, Gary?
 222 18:30:18 <garyo-home>	Greg: no, but we can find them quickly I think.
 223 18:31:17 <GregNoel>	1970?
 224 18:31:58 <garyo-home>	My defer list from the irc log: 2291, 2351, 2354, 2355, 2357, 2361, 2362
 225 18:32:28 <GregNoel>	2291, then
 226 18:32:34 <Jason_at_intel>	2352?
 227 18:32:39 <garyo-home>	oh yes, 1970 too.
 228 18:32:57 <GregNoel>	More than I thought...
 229 18:33:15 <garyo-home>	no 2352 is done.
 230 18:33:28 <garyo-home>	I can do a few now.
 231 18:33:36 <garyo-home>	How about 1970 as you suggested.
 232 18:34:08 <garyo-home>	it needs a keyword.
 233 18:34:44 <GregNoel>	getting_started seems too long
 234 18:35:07 <garyo-home>	newbie not very flattering
 235 18:35:22 <garyo-home>	easy_contribution too long
 236 18:35:30 <GregNoel>	small seems diminutive {;-}
 237 18:35:45 <stevenknight>	"initial"
 238 18:35:49 <stevenknight>	nah
 239 18:35:59 <stevenknight>	"starter"
 240 18:36:01 <GregNoel>	starter?  startup?  initial isn't bad
 241 18:36:07 <GregNoel>	jinx
 242 18:36:05 <garyo-home>	actually I kind of like "small".  It's nonthreatening.
 243 18:36:08 <garyo-home>	Or starter.
 244 18:36:26 <stevenknight>	"easy" ...
 245 18:36:34 <GregNoel>	Oooohhhh, yes
 246 18:36:43 <garyo-home>	yes, that's good.
 247 18:36:48 <garyo-home>	+easy
 248 18:36:57 <GregNoel>	done; now about the issue?
 249 18:37:53 <garyo-home>	what about it?
 250 18:38:12 <GregNoel>	anytime and draft pick don't fit together
 251 18:38:48 <garyo-home>	I think anytime and +easy shouldn't need an owner.
 252 18:38:52 <Jason_at_intel>	just read..2124... have feedback on it if you want it ( it is not install())
 253 18:39:14 <stevenknight>	agree w/gary
 254 18:39:19 <GregNoel>	it needs a schedule, so we're forced to pick someone, or a person, so they can plan it themselves
 255 18:39:27 <stevenknight>	for tracking purposes, create a "draftpick" user?
 256 18:39:49 <GregNoel>	uh.  issues@scons?
 257 18:39:42 <stevenknight>	if it needs a schedule, is it really "anytime?"
 258 18:40:06 <GregNoel>	that's my point
 259 18:40:08 <garyo-home>	any placeholder is ok w/ me for this type.
 260 18:40:42 <GregNoel>	I don't like it, but I'll go with anytime+easy and we'll see how it works.  Contact Jean anyway.
 261 18:40:47 <stevenknight>	GregNoel:  i'm not following you
 262 18:40:55 <garyo-home>	Jason: you're right 2124 is not Install, it's an OS handle inheritance race condition.
 263 18:41:05 <Jason_at_intel>	it is not the OS
 264 18:41:20 <Jason_at_intel>	we had it out with MS on this... it something else
 265 18:41:39 <Jason_at_intel>	we have this problem as of today with something completely different
 266 18:41:41 <garyo-home>	?  If you have info, please add it to the ticket.  Of course we want to hear about it too.
 267 18:41:54 <Jason_at_intel>	sure
 268 18:41:59 <GregNoel>	my point is that if you just say "anytime" and don't assign someone, it will simply keep floating out into the future
 269 18:42:16 <garyo-home>	Greg: isn't that the point?
 270 18:42:20 <stevenknight>	right, and isn't that precisely what we're trying to do?
 271 18:42:29 <stevenknight>	have a pool of "easy" issues that don't have names assigned
 272 18:42:39 <stevenknight>	as an encouragement for others to get involved?
 273 18:42:48 <GregNoel>	If that's what you want, I'll go with it.
 274 18:43:02 <stevenknight>	okay, let's go with that and see how it works
 275 18:43:19 <stevenknight>	if it ends up with some unforeseen downside, we can adjust
 276 18:43:15 <GregNoel>	2291?
 277 18:45:51 <garyo-home>	Steven, 2291 needs your comments.
 278 18:46:08 <GregNoel>	2291, my point is that we probably can't do a compat module without adding C code
 279 18:46:42 <garyo-home>	Greg: good point.
 280 18:47:43 <stevenknight>	is ctypes => types like cProfile => profile?
 281 18:48:02 <GregNoel>	I don't think so
 282 18:48:20 <Jason_at_intel>	I thought ctypes was a way to call a C functions in a  DLL  or .so
 283 18:48:20 <garyo-home>	no, ctypes is C types wrapped for python.
 284 18:48:25 <stevenknight>	ah
 285 18:48:41 <GregNoel>	plus calling sequences
 286 18:48:58 <GregNoel>	so you can wrap a function call with fairly arbitrary arguments
 287 18:49:11 <garyo-home>	right, all that stuff.  It's very general & useful
 288 18:49:10 <stevenknight>	okay, the C implementation necessity  probably suggests it's not a good compat candidate
 289 18:49:17 <stevenknight>	but I'm flying a little blind here (obviously)
 290 18:49:28 <garyo-home>	right, couldn't make a compat version of it.
 291 18:49:31 <garyo-home>	no way.
 292 18:49:56 <GregNoel>	http://docs.python.org/library/ctypes.html
 293 18:50:07 <Jason_at_intel>	I am confused... to use ctypes you have to make a c binary?
 294 18:50:39 <garyo-home>	Jason: by "compat" we mean could we emulate it in older python versions?
 295 18:51:17 <garyo-home>	For 2291 I think we should do nothing.
 296 18:51:20 <GregNoel>	I assume we'd want to make this change eventually, but not until 2.5 is the floor, since that's where ctypes becomes standard
 297 18:51:19 <Jason_at_intel>	oh.. I agree fully with that.. you would have to add the Ctype as a extra to the install
 298 18:51:28 <Jason_at_intel>	much like Ipython did
 299 18:51:40 <garyo-home>	Greg: agreed.
 300 18:51:47 <GregNoel>	So where do you want to put it?  Future p1?
 301 18:51:59 <garyo-home>	Seems reasonable.
 302 18:52:31 <GregNoel>	Maybe with a keyword of something like floor2.5?
 303 18:52:37 <stevenknight>	future p1 sounds good
 304 18:52:44 <stevenknight>	hmm, just looking at the patch
 305 18:52:53 <garyo-home>	I was just thinking that (keyword floor2.5)
 306 18:53:01 <stevenknight>	to do a compat implementation we don't have to support absolutely everything
 307 18:53:17 <stevenknight>	in some cases we intentionally support only enough to emulate what we use
 308 18:53:20 <GregNoel>	All it takes is one
 309 18:53:37 <GregNoel>	C file, that is
 310 18:53:55 <stevenknight>	so the key question:  is there anything in the patch that's not tractable in pure Python?
 311 18:54:00 <garyo-home>	... such as ctypes.cdll.msvcrt._get_osfhandle.
 312 18:54:04 <Jason_at_intel>	is there any hope to support iron python?
 313 18:54:15 <Jason_at_intel>	Will Ctypes work there?
 314 18:54:30 <stevenknight>	good question re: iron python
 315 18:54:47 <stevenknight>	i'd actually really like it if we'd run under iron python *and* jython
 316 18:55:33 <garyo-home>	side issue.  For 2291 can we say future p1 +floor2.5?
 317 18:55:44 <GregNoel>	I'll go for that
 318 18:56:24 <GregNoel>	Steven?
 319 18:56:32 <stevenknight>	concur
 320 18:56:36 <stevenknight>	still looking at code
 321 18:56:57 <GregNoel>	done, and I'll make it depend on 2124
 322 18:56:50 <stevenknight>	this is contained enough that I think we can do it with a compat layer
 323 18:57:16 <GregNoel>	If so, we can review it again
 324 18:57:32 <stevenknight>	okay
 325 18:57:57 <GregNoel>	2353, yes?
 326 18:58:08 <garyo-home>	2351: 2.x or 3.x?  Greg is worried (correctly) that 2.x is crowded
 327 18:58:36 <garyo-home>	so minor things like this should be pushed to 3.x.
 328 18:58:39 <GregNoel>	oops, yes, 2251; skipped one
 329 18:58:38 <garyo-home>	Steven?
 330 18:59:05 <GregNoel>	or 2.x p4 or p5
 331 18:59:28 <stevenknight>	you mean 2351 i hope?  I don't see 2251 on the list
 332 18:59:33 <garyo-home>	yes 2351
 333 18:59:47 <GregNoel>	2351
 334 19:00:06 *	GregNoel isn't doing any mondo typing tonight...
 335 18:59:49 <stevenknight>	i'd prefer 2.x, especially if it's going to be p5 anyway
 336 18:59:59 <stevenknight>	yes, it's crowded
 337 19:00:23 <stevenknight>	but i'd at least like to consider it in the 2.x time frame
 338 19:00:38 <stevenknight>	and make a conscious decision to push it farther out when we (re-)categorize all the 2.x issues
 339 19:00:41 <GregNoel>	2.x p4 or p5 is fine with me
 340 19:00:50 <GregNoel>	yes, I agree
 341 19:00:54 <stevenknight>	okay, 2.x p4 then
 342 19:00:56 <garyo-home>	ok too.
 343 19:00:59 <GregNoel>	done
 344 19:01:13 <GregNoel>	2353
 345 19:02:00 <stevenknight>	2353:  +easy?
 346 19:02:09 <stevenknight>	eh, it's a patch...
 347 19:02:24 <stevenknight>	is the question who?
 348 19:02:41 <garyo-home>	I thought I volunteered for 2353.
 349 19:02:46 <GregNoel>	Wait, didn't you take this one, Gary?  2.x p2?
 350 19:03:01 <garyo-home>	Next on my list was 2354.
 351 19:03:16 <stevenknight>	2354:  consensus +toolchain
 352 19:03:42 <garyo-home>	ok, right.
 353 19:03:48 <GregNoel>	Ah, I'm blind, it's 2355
 354 19:03:47 <garyo-home>	2355 then.
 355 19:04:03 <stevenknight>	k
 356 19:04:16 <garyo-home>	2355 is -j vs. chdir
 357 19:04:47 <stevenknight>	decision point:  do we just doc the limitation (as suggested by the issue)
 358 19:05:01 <stevenknight>	and open another one for greg's SideEffect() suggestion?
 359 19:04:50 <Jason_at_intel>	I would like a warning
 360 19:05:29 <stevenknight>	Jason_at_intel:  agree, a warning in this case would be good, too
 361 19:06:10 <Jason_at_intel>	If you don't warn people will think SCons is broken with -j.. even if it is not SCon's fault
 362 19:06:41 <GregNoel>	The SideEffect() needs some research, but a separate issue is a good idea
 363 19:07:09 <GregNoel>	Let's make 2355 cause a warning; make a new one for SideEffect()
 364 19:07:27 <garyo-home>	ok, so make the current issue 2.x p4 stevenknight, and a new issue for the SideEffect idea?
 365 19:07:39 <GregNoel>	done
 366 19:08:10 <garyo-home>	I think 2357 is next
 367 19:08:31 <GregNoel>	Yeah.  I need to explain ListLike() again...
 368 19:09:01 <garyo-home>	(We were just going to assign this to Greg but it needs discussion first.)
 369 19:09:02 <GregNoel>	The idea is that marking a variable as list-like means that it survives even assignment
 370 19:09:46 <stevenknight>	?
 371 19:10:03 <stevenknight>	you mean even if I did env['CCFLAGS'] = 'foo'
 372 19:10:14 <GregNoel>	yep
 373 19:10:25 <stevenknight>	an original ListLike value of CCFLAGS would *not* be overwritten?
 374 19:10:54 <Jason_at_intel>	that would require a env.Replace() ?
 375 19:10:57 <GregNoel>	it would be reset to ['foo'] but it's still list-like
 376 19:11:20 <stevenknight>	wait, i think i get it
 377 19:11:33 <stevenknight>	it's marking certain variables as always being treated as lists
 378 19:11:57 <stevenknight>	so that the "list like" behavior is a function of its semantic meaning in the environment
 379 19:12:06 <stevenknight>	not of the fact that its value is a specific object
 380 19:12:02 <GregNoel>	yes, exactly, it's mentioned in the Subst... page, but not detailed
 381 19:12:26 <stevenknight>	agree conceptually
 382 19:12:45 <Jason_at_intel>	is there a prototype of this code?
 383 19:12:46 <stevenknight>	different variables actually do have different semantics
 384 19:12:52 <stevenknight>	based on what they "mean"
 385 19:12:55 <GregNoel>	yes
 386 19:13:12 <stevenknight>	being smarter about that strikes me as a Good Thing
 387 19:13:19 <GregNoel>	yes
 388 19:13:28 <Jason_at_intel>	where? and can i give it a test run for you
 389 19:13:39 <GregNoel>	it also makes the tokenizing, usw., work better
 390 19:13:33 <stevenknight>	but also potentially dangerous if we don't define things carefully
 391 19:13:54 <GregNoel>	yes, potentially dangerous
 392 19:14:01 <GregNoel>	as are all good tools
 393 19:14:26 <Jason_at_intel>	risk is what makes life fun :-)
 394 19:15:23 <stevenknight>	i could do with a little less fun lately... :-)
 395 19:15:27 <garyo-home>	Greg, can you prototype it?
 396 19:16:21 <GregNoel>	I have a very rough prototype that works _most_ of the time, but I'm still trying to figure out why it's only "most".
 397 19:17:01 <Jason_at_intel>	glad to look at it .. if you can share it
 398 19:17:10 <garyo-home>	That seems like a good next step.
 399 19:17:16 <GregNoel>	In my copious spare time, I can try to prepare something to show how it works, but the basic idea is simple:
 400 19:17:43 <GregNoel>	convert env._dict[key] into env.vars.key
 401 19:18:16 <GregNoel>	then property() will Do The Right Thing
 402 19:18:57 <garyo-home>	in that case key has to be a python identifier, but perhaps that's already the case.
 403 19:19:04 <GregNoel>	yes
 404 19:19:43 <GregNoel>	[a-zA-Z_]\w* to be precise
 405 19:20:31 <GregNoel>	In any event, we're spending too much time on this
 406 19:20:54 <garyo-home>	yes, send it around, but for now let's move on.
 407 19:20:58 <GregNoel>	We should either defer it or try to figure out what the next step is
 408 19:21:12 <garyo-home>	research, greg.
 409 19:21:16 <GregNoel>	works
 410 19:21:29 <stevenknight>	+1
 411 19:21:43 <garyo-home>	I think 2361 is next?
 412 19:21:46 <GregNoel>	2361
 413 19:22:31 <GregNoel>	I think it needs some research to see exactly what he thought he was trying to do, but I don't think I'm the guy
 414 19:22:38 <garyo-home>	Greg & I are hoping toolchain rework will eliminate this one
 415 19:23:04 <stevenknight>	yep
 416 19:23:16 <GregNoel>	true, but I'd like to know what he thought he was doing
 417 19:23:20 <stevenknight>	but it would be good to document the restrictions in the meantime
 418 19:23:24 <GregNoel>	yes
 419 19:23:32 <stevenknight>	he just happens to be using a variable he named "options"
 420 19:23:51 <garyo-home>	I think you're right, and we reserve that name.
 421 19:24:00 <GregNoel>	I _think_ so, but I'd like to be sure
 422 19:24:04 <stevenknight>	...without telling anyone...  :-(
 423 19:24:08 <stevenknight>	agree re: being sure
 424 19:24:34 <garyo-home>	There's a lot about Tools that is imperfectly documented right now.  I'm not even sure this is where to start.
 425 19:24:34 <stevenknight>	i'll take it if no one else wants it
 426 19:24:48 <stevenknight>	and ask him for a copy of his module
 427 19:24:53 <garyo-home>	ok, thanks
 428 19:25:11 <GregNoel>	OK, but don't spend any significant time on it; he may be able to just tell you
 429 19:25:21 <garyo-home>	agreed
 430 19:25:27 <stevenknight>	yes
 431 19:25:37 <GregNoel>	last one, 2362
 432 19:25:50 <garyo-home>	+easy
 433 19:26:20 <GregNoel>	hmmmm
 434 19:27:12 <garyo-home>	Steven, I was hoping you'd take that one.
 435 19:27:20 <GregNoel>	I'll agree to marking it easy, but let's put it in the queue to get done
 436 19:27:40 <garyo-home>	2.x p4 stevenknight +easy? ???
 437 19:27:43 <GregNoel>	2.x p4 is fine with me
 438 19:27:53 <stevenknight>	hey, i'm easy but i'm not cheap
 439 19:27:58 <garyo-home>	:-)
 440 19:27:59 <GregNoel>	{;-}
 441 19:28:14 <stevenknight>	2.x p4 stevenknight is fine w/me
 442 19:28:22 <GregNoel>	OK, done
 443 19:28:23 <garyo-home>	ok, great.  We did them all!
 444 19:28:34 <stevenknight>	wow, nice work
 445 19:28:40 <garyo-home>	It's late here on the early coast.
 446 19:28:41 <stevenknight>	and special thanks for hanging out late after i showed up
 447 19:28:45 <GregNoel>	Yes, and now I've got 30 mins to do the shopping....
 448 19:28:51 <GregNoel>	bye, cul
 449 19:28:53 <garyo-home>	ok, bye all.
 450 19:29:02 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.6/2009011913]")
 451 20:57:34 *	stevenknight has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep")
 452 

BugParty/IrcLog2009-03-04 (last edited 2009-03-09 07:58:57 by ip68-7-77-81)