[perl #39714] [TODO] Refactor IMCC to remove static globals

[jerry gay]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 15:53, Will Coleda <will at coleda.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:09 PM, kjstol <parrotcode at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Will Coleda via RT <
>> parrotbug-followup at parrotcode.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue Jul 04 19:30:44 2006, autrijus at gmail.com wrote:
>>> > IMCC currently relies on a lot of static globals to carry state, and
>>> > cannot reliably restore them when an error occurs. (grep for
>>> > "static" and "FIXME global" in the IMCC tree.)
>>> >
>>> > Allison had ruled that reentrancy should be possible for IMCC, and
>>> > this would be a good refactoring project.
>>>
>>> We've rejected a lot of "clean up IMCC" tickets with the thought that we
>>> eventually want PIRC to take over. Anyone think this falls into the same
>>> category?
>>>
>>
>> I would like to indicate that while most of PIRC's done, it's not finished
>> yet. Major issue now is the bug with STRING and FLOATVAL constants bug
>> (there's 1 or 2 tickets on that). I haven't really had the energy or time to
>> work on that recently. The rest is just a matter of test+fix cycle; I'm sure
>> there's all sorts of cases that should be tested more properly than I've
>> done. So, although I'm confident that together we can fix PIRC, don't throw
>> out imcc just yet..
>>
>> kjs
>
> To be clear, I'm not saying "throw out IMCC", I'm saying, "Let's not
> bother trying to fix tricky bits of IMCC if we're just going to throw
> it out later."
>
i want to go into production (1.0) knowing what's broken in imcc
rather than hiding the broken things in closed/rejected tickets. what
do we get by hiding bugs? surprises. i could use fewer of those--my
teeth still hurt from that surprise trip to the dentist this week.

~jerry