Le 27/01/2012 18:08, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
I'm almost scared right now O_O
You'll be happy to learn (eh, I just learnt it this very afternoon) that the
C standards says that char can be either "unsigned char" or "signed char"...
so if you want to be safe, just use the most precise form.
Ok now I'm scared O_O;;;
Here is the ticket with the promised patch and a few remarks :
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12371
Nice ! Could I *pleaaaaase* ask you to add the "cdef int next_set" I
mentionned in my previous post ? I'd put it secretly in another patch
otherwise but I'm sure I would eventually forget ^^;
Well, no : this is an independent change and hence needs an independent
patch.
But perhaps a patch to :
1. change those "int" uses where it's known to really be an "unsigned
char" between 0 and the cardinal of the graph
1. add a "cdef unsigned char next_set" as an aside but related fix
in a new ticket will suit you?
Snark on #sagemath
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
