[pypy-dev] Re: [pypy-svn] r9590 - in pypy/dist/pypy: annotation annotation/test translator/test

[Samuele Pedroni]

Michael Hudson wrote:
> pedronis at codespeak.net writes:
> 
> 
>>Author: pedronis
>>Date: Wed Mar  2 19:40:07 2005
>>New Revision: 9590
>>
>>Modified:
>>   pypy/dist/pypy/annotation/classdef.py
>>   pypy/dist/pypy/annotation/model.py
>>   pypy/dist/pypy/annotation/test/test_model.py
>>   pypy/dist/pypy/annotation/unaryop.py
>>   pypy/dist/pypy/translator/test/snippet.py
>>   pypy/dist/pypy/translator/test/test_annrpython.py
>>Log:
>>don't bump classdef revision number if only a fresher revision in an
>>attribute is involved, notice that we still reflow even in this
>>case.
>>
>>contains logic modified to let caller distinguish this situation,
>>RevDiff (a false value) is returned if the only reason for a false
>>contains relationship is rev numbers.
>>
>>without these changes the new test analysing make_eo would recurse
>>infinititely.
> 
> 
> At some point, we're *really* going to want to document some of this
> stuff!  I.e. something approaching a proof of correctness and
> termination for the annotator.  I guess having a correct and/or
> terminating annotator would be a good start...
> 

yes, but this one change is not only obscure but is also not correct in
general (I have an example). The check-in comment indeed gives the wrong 
impression. The real criteria, I think, is whether the class expanded 
structurally has changed or not, although this one will help narrowing 
the cases where we really need to care about that.