At 07:07 PM 12/6/2001 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:47:54PM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> > Either way is fine with me. Let me know and I'll check in an updated
> > version...
>
>Well, uh, neither, actually. :) I think the implementation of "rotate"
>is broken, since the parameters to rotate_entries are all stuffed up.
>I'm amazed this compiles:
>
>core_ops.c: rotate_entries(interpreter, cur_opcode[1]);
>stacks.c:void rotate_entries(struct Parrot_Interp *interpreter, struct
>StackChunk *base_chunk, struct Stack_Entry *top, INTVAL depth)
Ah, that was one of the things Dec C whined about until I (unwisely, I see)
told it to shut up about non-fatals...
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
