Re: 3.0.4 RC3 (mingw 3.4.5)-2

[John W. Eaton]

On  3-Mar-2009, Benjamin Lindner wrote:

| John W. Eaton wrote:
| > On 30-Jan-2009, Benjamin Lindner wrote:
| > 
| > | To work around it in octave we need to rethink octave's way to save 
| > | anonymous function handles in ascii format.
| > | I have tried something for in the development branch, which allows this 
| > | test to pass, but it means a small but significant change in the format 
| > | of saving anonymous function handles. This breaks backwards 
| > | compatibility, so I'm not really happy about my approach.
| > 
| > We can open text files for reading in binary mode.  It just means that
| > we have to handle the CRLF, CR, and LF line endings ourselves.  We
| > already do that (more or less) for .m files.  But it would maybe be a
| > good idea to come up with a unified way of doing it for all of Octave.
| > 
| 
| I have put some thought into this problem and have changed the behaviour 
| of reading ascii mode data by doing the following
|   *) files get always opened in binary mode when loading data (saving to 
| ascii is still done in text mode)
|   *) walked through the load_ascii( ) method of the various octave_value 
| derived classes and moved all newline/cr/lf related code into common 
| functions
|   *) created ls-ascii-helper.h and ls-ascii-helper.cc and stored the 
| common functions there
| 
| With this, I get rid of the failing test in ov-fcn-handle.cc on mingw. I 
| have no additional failed tests. Saving and loading in "-text" format 
| seems to work, I have not encountered problems yet.
| 
| I don't have access to matlab, so I could not check what happens with 
| data files in matlab's text format. I'd appreciate cross-checks.

I applied this patch with some style changes.  I also had to remove
this part of the patch:

| diff -r 97991a9e7a18 -r 1315d5c25fa9 src/ls-oct-ascii.cc
| --- a/src/ls-oct-ascii.cc     Tue Mar 03 19:28:03 2009 +0100
| +++ b/src/ls-oct-ascii.cc     Tue Mar 03 10:09:56 2009 +0100
| @@ -118,14 +119,15 @@
|               }
|  
|             retval = value.str ();
| +           skip_until_newline (is, false);
|             break;
|           }
|         else if (next_only)

Otherwise I saw 6 new failures when running make check.  Why was this
line added?  Is it needed for systems that have CRLF?  If so, why?

Thanks,

jwe