[DGD] lambda operator re-re-visited?

[Raymond Jennings]

If you have to use source code lines, at least dont' forget about headers
and preprocessing.

Also, if you reformat your code or add a new function, what will that do to
affect tracking?

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Dread Quixadhal <quixadhal at gmail.com> wrote:

> Unless you persist the source in the object, I'd probably just use a
> counter and label each one as they are found during compilation.  The line
> numbers would change during an upgrade anyways, so they would likewise only
> be valid with the source version that defined them.
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Carter Cheng <cartercheng at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Do you have a better suggestion?
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Please please please oh please do not use line numbers as
> discriminants.
> > >
> > > Source code is VERY mutable, and even a reformatting can change things.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Carter Cheng <cartercheng at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually I do not see it as that heuristical once the discriminant is
> > > added
> > > > the identifier is unique. Also basically programs are identified by
> > file
> > > > name in the common case already. So you would have something like
> > > > filename#line number.discriminant for a given program and any object
> > > would
> > > > include the additional object number.. The discriminant is to
> > > differentiate
> > > > between two "closures" originating from the same line.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Felix A. Croes <felix at dworkin.nl>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Carter Cheng <cartercheng at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think breaking the anonymity a bit for the purposes of
> > > recompilation
> > > > > > might be a possible solution. I.e. associating something like a
> > file
> > > > path
> > > > > > and line number with some extra discriminant to each closure's
> > > metadata
> > > > > and
> > > > > > having a way to locate the anonymous functions associated with a
> > > given
> > > > > > piece of source.
> > > > >
> > > > > Giving up the anonymity would be a solution, but what you are
> > proposing
> > > > > is just a heuristic.  I doubt that it will be so easy.  It would be
> > no
> > > > > good if a failing testcase can be constructed for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Felix Croes
> > > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > > > >
> > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > > ____________________________________________
> > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > >
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd