On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:01:13PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> #17026 was reverted by committing minor print changes.
>
> Please clean up the mess, whoever did it.
It has been reverted, but not in the way you describe:
----------------------------
revision 1.208
date: 2002/09/06 07:26:22; author: mongo; state: Exp; lines: +4 -4
In tracking down a gc bug, I realized that the current throwaway
implementation of the print op could be replaced with a faster
throwaway implementation that avoids doing a string_to_cstring.
Note that both the original and new implementations are still buggy
with respect to supporting different encodings. I don't know if
printf("%s") is any better than fwrite in terms of at least vaguely
paying attention to your locale or whatever. If so, don't apply it.
(Courtesy of Steve Fink)
----------------------------
revision 1.207
date: 2002/09/06 01:52:06; author: mrjoltcola; state: Exp; lines: +86 -86
Update some ops' parameter attributes. Courtesy Leopold Toetsch.
----------------------------
revision 1.206
date: 2002/09/05 15:03:23; author: dan; state: Exp; lines: +16 -0
chr op, and scheme fixes
----------------------------
revision 1.205
date: 2002/09/05 14:54:00; author: educated_foo; state: Exp; lines: +86 -86
Fix argdirs for imcc (Leo Toetsch).
----------------------------
revision 1.205 is educated_foo applying your patch
revision 1.207 is mrjoltcola unapplying your patch (presumably by not realising
that it had been applied and assuming that it was reversed.
I do not remember seeing a thanks applied to the list, but even if sent, that
doesn't stop the race condition of two people trying to apply patches before
mail has propagated)
revision 1.208 (the minor print changes) is innocent.
I would prefer not to be the committer to fix this - I'd only become a
third person and add to the confusion.
Nicholas Clark
