From owner-freebsd-perl@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 10 09:00:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: perl@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-perl@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0295F16A420 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:00:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tobez@tobez.org) Received: from heechee.tobez.org (heechee.tobez.org [194.255.56.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9256A43D45 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:00:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tobez@tobez.org) Received: by heechee.tobez.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6B53F125420; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:00:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:00:38 +0100 From: Anton Berezin To: Tod McQuillin Message-ID: <20060210090038.GA21422@heechee.tobez.org> References: <200602100842.k1A8gkKJ065130@freefall.freebsd.org> <20060210175230.W64085@plexi.pun-pun.prv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060210175230.W64085@plexi.pun-pun.prv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Powered-By: FreeBSD http://www.freebsd.org/ Cc: perl@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/93122: [PATCH] www/p5-HTML-Parser: [fix build on 4.x] X-BeenThere: freebsd-perl@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: maintainer of a number of perl-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:00:41 -0000 On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 05:53:47PM +0900, Tod McQuillin wrote: > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Anton Berezin wrote: > > >Synopsis: [PATCH] www/p5-HTML-Parser: [fix build on 4.x] > > > >State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > >State-Changed-By: tobez > >State-Changed-When: Fri Feb 10 09:42:46 CET 2006 > >State-Changed-Why: > >Whoops, I fixed it independently with a slightly different patch before > >seeing your PR. Thanks anyway. > > I thought about doing it your way but I wasn't sure if accessing ->offset, > ->line, ->column would be valid if ->eof was true. But comparing with > version 3.48 I see it used to access them without checking so I guess it's > okay. Since there is no deep magic going on, and the code assumes that p_state can be accessed, I see no harm in those assignments. But I do not claim that my patch is in any way better than yours, I would have committed your version if I were to see the PR before I fixed the compilation. :-) Cheers, \Anton. -- An undefined problem has an infinite number of solutions. -- Robert A. Humphrey