[erlang-bugs] [erlang-patches] syntax_tools anonymous function error

[Henrik Nord]

I will move it into the que
Thank you for your contribution!

On 2013-10-02 10:55, Anthony Ramine wrote:
> I guess we can merge it now then.
>
> Le 1 oct. 2013 à 23:56, Richard Carlsson a écrit :
>
>> Maybe I got confused - was the format change in the other direction, i.e., used to be atoms but is now trees? In that case, I guess you're right. Just make sure that the code does the right thing in all combinations of cases, and you're done. :-)
>>
>>    /Richard
>>
>> On 2013-10-01 23:41, Anthony Ramine wrote:
>>> In fact I really don't see what you mean. The problem is revert_implicit_fun/1 calling concrete/1 on the individual parts when it shouldn't.
>>>
>>> I don't see how changing another function would fix anything.
>>>
>>> Le 1 oct. 2013 à 14:30, Anthony Ramine a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the reply, will amend this tonight.
>>>>
>>>> Le 1 oct. 2013 à 14:25, Richard Carlsson a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, drowning in stuff as usual. Anthony, I trust that your analysis of why that clause could be deleted, so that should be ok. But I thought there was something weird about the format changes, and now I think I see what it is: calls like arity_qualifier_body(Name) should never return a naked atom or integer - always a syntax tree. So the fix for the revert "fun F/A" case should be done in implicit_fun_name/1 instead, just as it's handled for "fun M:F/A". And in the reverting of "fun M:F/A", you shouldn't have to change anything at all, since it's already handled.
>>>>>
>>>>>   /Richard
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2013-10-01 13:58 , Henrik Nord wrote:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> I was awaiting an answer to this:
>>>>>>     @richcarl <https://github.com/richcarl>Should I amend this commit?
>>>>>> And the possible amend to the commit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is not going to happen I can put it through the test-merge precedure
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Henrik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2013-10-01 13:27, Anthony Ramine wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see on the development page that an action is required from me for this patch [1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what exactly is required from me..?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]http://www.erlang.org/development/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 20 mai 2013 à 10:12, Fredrik a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/19/2013 12:33 PM, Anthony Ramine wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello Michael,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This patch fixes support of implicit funs with variables in igor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 	git fetchhttps://github.com/nox/otp.git  igor-funs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 	https://github.com/nox/otp/compare/erlang:maint...igor-funs
>>>>>>>>> 	https://github.com/nox/otp/compare/erlang:maint...igor-funs.patch
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Anthony,
>>>>>>>> I've fetched your patch and it should be visible in the 'pu' branch shortly.
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BR Fredrik Gustafsson
>>>>>>>> Erlang OTP Team
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> /Henrik Nord Erlang/OTP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> erlang-patches mailing list
>>>>>> erlang-patches@REDACTED
>>>>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches
>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anthony Ramine
>>>>

-- 
/Henrik Nord Erlang/OTP