[DGD] lambda operator re-re-visited?

[bart at wotf.org]

Replying to my own message...

I just realized I can't use udp to talk to syslog on my logging host without
the network extensions so this turns out to be a more involved option then I
initially thought.

Bart.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 18:49:31 +0100, bart wrote
> 
> I'm myself pondering doing some work on the network extensions to better
> integrate the code with the current comms/connection code, and make 
> it support ipv6 properly, but kinda wondering if I should bother 
> seeing how dgd without network extensions can do almost everything I 
> want, with the exception of opening a random port (which I use for 
> node to node links in a distributed system) and getting me the 
> underlying error when a connection fails, both can be worked around 
> relatively easily.
> 
> Bart.
> 
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 08:45:31 +0800, Carter Cheng 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
> 
> --
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
> http://www.om-d.org/
> 
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd


--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
http://www.om-d.org/