[ET Trac] [Einstein Toolkit] #2003: piraha_everywhere Zelmani stress test

[Einstein Toolkit]

#2003: piraha_everywhere Zelmani stress test
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  rhaas   |       Owner:  sbrandt            
      Type:  defect  |      Status:  assigned           
  Priority:  major   |   Milestone:                     
 Component:  Cactus  |     Version:  development version
Resolution:          |    Keywords:  piraha             
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------

Comment (by knarf):

 Most of the time you will find me arguing for backwards compatibility, for
 reasons Roland already mentioned. But there is a limit. Line-continuation
 within a token might have been allowed by the documentation, and might be
 working in the old parser. But I find it hard to imagine that someone
 actually _wants_ to use it. It shouldn't be used. So, my opinion is that
 we should start disallowing that.

 Another issue is how we do this. Usually, we say we announce this in the
 release notes for the release after that one. The intention here is to
 give people time to adapt. In this specific case, however, it would mean
 either keeping the piraha changes out until then (and then still waiting
 for the double-parsing to be removed later I guess), or to change it to
 make two passes, just for that quite questionable case. If we were to do
 this, there should also be a parse-time warning about this, but frankly
 most likely this would be useless because nobody will be able to read it
 the few milliseconds it will be on the screen before it scrolls away. It
 would follow standard procedure, but it would be useless.

 This, this time, I suggest to make that change (disallow line continuation
 within tokens), and make it already for the next release.

 The one exception I see is a string (like a description). Here I could see
 someone wanting to break up a long string without introducing an actual
 newline in the string. But in this specific case, as Steve assured me,
 this would not be hard to handle, and wouldn't require two passes.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.einsteintoolkit.org/ticket/2003#comment:34>
Einstein Toolkit <http://einsteintoolkit.org>
The Einstein Toolkit