-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 862
ICU-22939 Function composition and default bidi strategy #3536
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
7373296 to
24c64c9
Compare
|
Hooray! The files in the branch are the same across the force-push. 😃 ~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot |
24c64c9 to
b34d0a5
Compare
|
Notice: the branch changed across the force-push!
~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot |
srl295
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a couple of starting comments
| template<typename T> | ||
| inline T* create(const T& node, UErrorCode& status) { | ||
| if (U_FAILURE(status)) { | ||
| return nullptr; | ||
| } | ||
| T* result = new T(node); | ||
| if (result == nullptr) { | ||
| status = U_MEMORY_ALLOCATION_ERROR; | ||
| } | ||
| return result; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if these should go into common - perhaps cmemory.h , errorcode.h or uobject.h
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could this be done in a future PR? Would be happy to open a JIRA ticket for it. This PR is already doing a lot. cmemory.h seems like the best place, or possibly a new private header, since cmemory.h is already pretty big.
|
I'm guessing the Windows compilation errors might have something to do with the changes in #3521. I'll look into it. |
d973ccb to
87fbe3a
Compare
|
Notice: the branch changed across the force-push!
~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot |
4088f35 to
267e8e3
Compare
|
Notice: the branch changed across the force-push!
~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot |
267e8e3 to
df7d54a
Compare
|
Notice: the branch changed across the force-push!
~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot |
|
I'm not sure why the format checker is failing, as this PR doesn't change any Java files. |
While it won't solve the mystery of why ICU4J / Format checker was being run at all for this PR, you might be able to make the error go away by rebasing on top of current main, commit 148f5ca. |
Checking the 9 commits, there is nothing that is worth keeping separate for easier review, or better history. They are just attempts to fix problems. Happen, they are natural process, but not worth preserving. Squashing will also solve the "jira ticket", which complains about the description (the squashed commit will have a description that passes the test). And fixing all 3 complaints will also fix the general one "waiting tor required checks" and you will have a green PR. |
b244089 to
7abcb4b
Compare
|
Hooray! The files in the branch are the same across the force-push. 😃 ~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot |
|
I've rebased and squashed; hoping this fixes all the CI errors 🤞🏼 |
…t strategy Implement the changes to resolved values necessary to implement function composition. Implement lazy/call-by-need evaluation (instead of lazy-call-by-name evaluation). Implement the default bidi strategy and APIs for controlling it. Update spec tests to those from the current version of the message-format-wg repo, except for currency and math tests (these functions are not yet implemented).
7abcb4b to
ccfe7bd
Compare
|
Notice: the branch changed across the force-push!
~ Your Friendly Jira-GitHub PR Checker Bot |
|
I've removed support for the
|
This PR does several things:
Note 1: There are a few differences between the code and two design docs, which I detailed in an email to the icu-design list.
This PR is contingent on those changes being approved, but since there's a lot here to review, I wanted to go ahead and make the PR available for review.As there have been no objections to the email, I'm considering the additional changes approved.Note 2: I will be on leave from July 2-July 14 and won't see review comments during that time. I'll reply to comments when I return.Checklist