Hi,
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> OTOH, would the latter be very necessary? Can't we just someday break
>> the ABI and use 64-bit types in `scm_t_ptob_descriptor'?
>
> Probably less convenient than having both. There's likely to be
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'm trying to clear out old email... Would you mind reposting the
>> remaining patch if you still have it; unfortunately the texinfo is
>> mangled in the HTML copy.
>
> In the meantime, Marius
Buy this product now and all women will be yours Try it now! Now you could
grant your wish Show your girl a huge explosion as I used to do Do you wish to
become multi-orgasmic? See our offer: http://stejtin.com/gal/gsm/
He is an ill companion that has a good memory If the mountain will not com
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thanks; I've applied most of it to HEAD,
If it's any good then it's worth having in the 1.8 branch, no need for
doc clarifications to wait the 3 years between major releases :-).
> with slight edits so as not to make the point too many times.
Looks a l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> What I was suggesting is to have only
> one version of each function that uses, say, `scm_off_t' and
> `scm_size_t' which both turn out to be 64-bit data types.
(You only mean off_t here of course, there's no variation in size_t.)
Having off64_t unc
