create a new entry and funnel all the other ones to the new one.
Nicolas what would be great is to have one change that group  
everything else this is really difficult to find the right files
to file in together.

Stef

On Aug 31, 2008, at 4:46 AM, nicolas cellier wrote:

> SqNumberParser speed up has been introduced a little prematurely in  
> 3.10.1 image. I uploaded correction for a detail at http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6976
>
> Now all the tests parsing gradual underflow Float should pass again
> (round to the nearest Float as was the case before the speed up).
>
> That's quite some time i spent correcting my own bugs with this  
> SqNumberParser!
> - http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6976 speed up (harvested in  
> 3.10.1)
>  introduced the bug described above
> - http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6982 (not harvested)
>  had a typo
> - http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=3512 (harvested in 3.9)
>  introduced a bug in ScaledDecimal parsing
>  (see http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7169)
> - http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6779 (in minor fix unstable 3.10)
>  duplicated this bug in another method
>  so did http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6982
>
> Sorry for inconvenience (don't think any user but me bumped into  
> these problems however, given that Number readFrom: is far worse  
> w.r.t. nearest Float, and is still the official Number reader in the  
> image).
> Sorry for flooding maintainers too (I think the impact is bigger).
>
> Looking at my own code i saw code duplications, not enough comment,  
> typos in comments.
> Some will find that using inst var to save some of the parser state  
> is tricky, but that's another subject (Scanner and parser do the  
> same). This is the cost of efficiency. And that's why comments are  
> necessary.
>
> Anyway, i refactored a bit, cleaned duplications, added comments,  
> and added more speed again for LargeInteger using same kind of  
> divide and conquer trick as http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6887  
> (more in another post)
>
> All my tests are green. Now, i have a problem for publishing in  
> mantis. Since the refactoring does interfere with a lot of already  
> published patches some harvested, some not, some on the way to be  
> harvested, It might create some problems for harvesters (load order  
> of Installer mantis ensureFix:).
>
> I like the small change sets for they can be adopted independantly  
> in several distributions, but there Monticello might be more  
> appropriated.
>
> What do you suggest?
>
>
>