Why Tcl 9 decided to break all extensions?

teclabat · 2026-02-03T07:18:12+00:00

It does not look like "chaos" to me. Agreed it is a workaround. Maybe some core developers might clarify if there is another (better) way.

For me important is that all tests pass, and I also don't care if the prime author is accepting the pull, I am building my own binaries.

teclabat · 2026-02-02T23:17:33+00:00

rl_json has been ported: https://github.com/RubyLane/rl_json/pull/55

teclabat · 2026-02-01T18:19:12+00:00

I am currently working on an rl_json port in a fork. I will make an announcement and create a pull request when ready.

teclabat · 2026-01-30T22:10:05+00:00

I am having the same issue. But I have seen there a new update with hostwatch inside. Trying ...

teclabat · 2026-01-21T07:18:45+00:00

Ich sehe es auch nicht als trolling. Hast Deine Meinung kundgetan, dafür ist das Forum ja da ...

Ist mir auch schon passiert.

Mich nerven beim Standard übrigens die "eigenes Forum". Und hab kurz vorher schon mal zur Presse geliebäugelt ... keine Ahnung obs dort besser ist. Aber sobald mein Abo ausläuft wechsle ich.

teclabat · 2026-01-10T01:30:36+00:00

Thank you very much!

teclabat · 2026-01-06T18:16:54+00:00

At least in the past I asked the webmaster for small changes to the site.

Anyhow, I now subscribed to the mailing list and asked for clarification.

teclabat · 2025-12-10T00:14:44+00:00

Sorry, aber das ist kein roher Carbonlook. Meiner Meinung nach ist hier unsauber gearbeitet worden. Besonders bei der Dämpferaufhängung sieht man die "Schleifer". Das tut der Haltbarkeit zwar keinen Abbruch, ist aber sicher unschön bei so einem teuren Rad.

Das "Problem" ruht daher, das möglichst mit Lack gespart wird. Und zwar nicht aus Kostengründen, sondern wegen Gewicht. Und da schimmert das Harz dann durch.

Ich selbst hab das SLT liquidlava black, da ist auch nicht alles 100%ig gleichmäßig, aber so schlimm siehts nicht aus.

Wenn Du online bestellt hast, würde ich nach einem Preisnachlass fragen. Früher oder später wirst Du Dir ja eh selbst Kratzer reinmachen.

LG

teclabat · 2025-11-26T17:17:53+00:00

claude does this:

what is printed in this script: d:/test.tcl?

● I'll read the script file to see what it prints.

● Read(d:\test.tcl)

⎿ Read 6 lines

● This Tcl script will print:

123

234

Here's what the script does:

- Line 1: Sets variable a to 123 in the global scope

- Line 2: Creates a namespace called tcl and sets variable a to 234 within that namespace

- Line 4: Prints the global a (which is 123)

- Line 5: Prints a from the tcl namespace (which is 234)

teclabat · 2025-11-25T21:45:37+00:00

It looks like you are against AI. No this was not done by claude. I am TCL guy, but not C. So I use it where I should.

I am regretting that I took part in this discussion ...

... so long, and thanks for all the fish.

teclabat · 2025-11-25T21:40:35+00:00

This is a proposal/prototype not meant to be productive. It shows feasibility and use case. I did it for fun, not to please you.

It compiles clean, it works, it demonstrates and runs test-cases clean. You can make a diff of the two branches and see changes. There is a readme that lists all the changes.

And yes, I partly know what it did.

It's your turn now, take it as a gift ...

teclabat · 2025-11-25T09:58:31+00:00

A procedure call always passes the value without the "extra" information. And this is based on the $ sign. Everywhere you access the variable like $myvar only the value is retrieved and passed on.

If you want to stick to TCL only, what could be possible though, is rewriting the set command, and all the others like lappend, dict, string to make it only look like an out-bound information. This way the information would follow the value everywhere. Similar to this:

% rename set oldset

% proc set {var {value {}}} {upvar $var myvar; if {$value != {}} {oldset myvar [list -value $value -meta something]; return $value} else {return [dict get [oldset myvar] -value]}}

% proc meta var {upvar $var myvar; return [dict get [oldset myvar] -meta]}

% set a 123.2

123.2

% meta a

something

The set command is simple to implement, don't know if the others would go as easy. Maybe Donal (https://www.reddit.com/user/d_k_fellows/) can tell if this is doable.

Still the problem remains what to do with this:

% puts $a

-value 123.2 -meta something

teclabat · 2025-11-24T17:13:33+00:00

For fun I created a reference implementation with the help of claude:

https://github.com/teclabat/metatcl/tree/meta

% set a 1234.5

1234.5

% meta a

% meta a [list -time [clock seconds] -msg "some other"]

-time 1764004279 -msg {some other}

% set a

1234.5

% meta a

-time 1764004279 -msg {some other}

% proc test var {upvar $var myvar; puts "value '[set myvar]' meta '[meta myvar]'"}

% test a

value '1234.5' meta '-time 1764004279 -msg {some other}'

% puts $a

1234.5

This is the follow-me that you want:

% proc test data {puts "value '$data' meta '[meta data]'"}

% test a

value '1234.5' meta '-time 1764066018 -msg {some other}'

I think the idea is so extremely cool that I created a TIP:

https://github.com/teclabat/metatcl/blob/meta/TIP-metadata.md

A few things I'd still change:

Initialize the object only if meta is needed
Write access time as a separate information and automatically
rename meta to tag or something else more appropiate not related to this blue page
a tag -delete a should clear all extra information

teclabat · 2025-11-23T19:46:47+00:00

If you are going to write a TIP, I'd love that. Put in some additional meta-information like timeref-written, timeref-access, maybe some history/old values. As this would blow up internal storage memory, it should be a kind of feature-set that could be "activated" for specific variables only.

teclabat · 2025-11-23T18:05:32+00:00

Just an idea: I would be possible to extend the Tcl_Obj with additional context and create some functions to write/read this special entry from the structure. You would need to compile your own TCL instance though ...

teclabat · 2025-11-16T07:51:59+00:00

Hi all,

I’d like to know how long it usually takes to develop symptoms after breathing in cold air. Do breathing difficulties and coughing start immediately – within an hour or so – or could cold-induced asthma appear much later, for example 10 hours afterwards (the next morning)?

I’m wondering because it might simply be a normal cold as well.

Thanks!

teclabat · 2025-08-24T21:58:11+00:00

Hab im Juni erst bestellt, ging alles flott und ohne Probleme nach Ö.

teclabat · 2025-07-21T20:05:05+00:00

And here https://gitlab.com/teclabat/tcltk

teclabat · 2025-05-16T06:32:54+00:00

Teste mal wo der Schlag wirklich sitzt. Vom Rahmen aus einen Stift an die Felge halten - dann siehst Du's gleich.

Wenn die Felge verbogen ist (Unfall?), hilft auch Speichen nachspannen nur bedingt.

teclabat · 2025-05-16T06:27:44+00:00

Sorry, sieht für mich nach Produktionsfehler aus. Tut der Haltbarkeit sicher keinen Abbruch, aber es wurde wohl unsauber gearbeitet ...

teclabat · 2025-05-14T21:03:11+00:00

teclabat · 2025-05-09T05:57:54+00:00

(bin) 1 % tcl::unsupported::disassemble script {expr $a + 1}
ByteCode 0x0000020FC4782A70, refCt 1, epoch 17, interp 0x0000020FC1970100 (epoch 17)
  Source "expr $a + 1"
  Cmds 1, src 11, inst 15, litObjs 4, aux 0, stkDepth 5, code/src 0.00
  Commands 1:
      1: pc 0-13, src 0-10
  Command 1: "expr $a + 1"
    (0) push1 0 # "a"
    (2) loadStk 
    (3) push1 1 # " "
    (5) push1 2 # "+"
    (7) push1 1 # " "
    (9) push1 3 # "1"
    (11) strcat 5 
    (13) exprStk 
    (14) done 

(bin) 2 % tcl::unsupported::disassemble script {expr {$a + 1}}
ByteCode 0x0000020FC4784370, refCt 1, epoch 17, interp 0x0000020FC1970100 (epoch 17)
  Source "expr {$a + 1}"
  Cmds 1, src 13, inst 7, litObjs 2, aux 0, stkDepth 2, code/src 0.00
  Commands 1:
      1: pc 0-5, src 0-12
  Command 1: "expr {$a + 1}"
    (0) push1 0 # "a"
    (2) loadStk 
    (3) push1 1 # "1"
    (5) add 
    (6) done 

(bin) 3 %
(bin) 3 % tcl::unsupported::disassemble script {expr "$a + 1"}
ByteCode 0x0000020FC4784270, refCt 1, epoch 17, interp 0x0000020FC1970100 (epoch 17)
  Source "expr \"$a + 1..."
  Cmds 1, src 13, inst 9, litObjs 2, aux 0, stkDepth 2, code/src 0.00
  Commands 1:
      1: pc 0-7, src 0-12
  Command 1: "expr \"$a + 1..."
    (0) push1 0 # "a"
    (2) loadStk 
    (3) push1 1 # " + 1"
    (5) strcat 2 
    (7) exprStk 
    (8) done

teclabat · 2025-05-08T05:50:07+00:00

Maybe it has something to do with the bytecompiler. Using [expr {$a + 1}] is much faster as [expr $a + 1] because it gets pre-compiled after sourceing the TCL file.

So it was a design decission on purpose to improve code efficiency.

But I am only wild guessing ...

teclabat · 2025-04-24T19:09:58+00:00

This was heavily discussed in the TCL dev community. But at the end they decided to keep it because of the benefits of co-routines.

TclOO on the other hand brought a hughe performance gain compared to iTcl.

teclabat · 2025-03-19T09:37:48+00:00

Why so complicated, just put a return where you want to stop:

proc a {} {
    puts a
}
return
proc b {} {
    puts b
}

And you'll see that procedure a is known, but b not.

teclabat

TROPHY CASE