Re: completion problem with '291' ok with '274'.

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:43:23 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Feb 12,  9:25am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> } Subject: Re: completion problem with '291' ok with '274'.
> }
> } On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:30:54 -0800
> } Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> } > So basically we have to back out all of 34485 and start that over.
> } 
> } Yes, it's job control stuff that the test suite doesn't cover.
> 
> So I should go ahead and commit that back-out?

Yes, I think so.  Thanks.

> } Removing the tests in front of the "*cmplx = 1" must be safe in the
> } sense that if it shows up problems for annonymous functions then they're
> } already present in the standard execution path and hence need fixing.
> 
> I thought we determined before that there's some sort of interaction
> between the wordcode generation and the setting of *cmplx such that
> one can't just change the way that value is computed in par_simple()
> et al.  without making a corresponding change upstream?
> 
> I'm probably mis-remembering.

You can't in general set *cmplx to 0 because that takes you through the
simple path that doesn't handle everything.

You should certainly be able to set it to 1 to go through the
all-singing-all-dancing path.  As it does that in any case with
arguments, to fix an early problem, if it fails without arguments, then
something *very* weird is going on.  (Not saying it isn't, mind...)

pws