On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 06:20:34PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4311041>
>
> Please improve/discuss. This looks totally insane but does not actually
> change the existing absurd realities for single-digit unsigned numbers.
Thanks added as
http://code.google.com/p/l
Neil Puttock writes:
> On 22 March 2011 17:20, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> This.
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/4311041>
>>
>> Please improve/discuss. This looks totally insane but does not actually
>> change the existing absurd realities for single-digit unsigned numbers.
>
> I'm afraid I c
On 22 March 2011 17:20, David Kastrup wrote:
> This.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4311041>
>
> Please improve/discuss. This looks totally insane but does not actually
> change the existing absurd realities for single-digit unsigned numbers.
I'm afraid I can't even get as far as running `ma
On 3/22/11 11:20 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:48:21PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Perhaps i'll aim for obliterating DIGIT altogether.
>>
>> I certainly can't think of any case in which we actually need/want
>> a DIGIT. I see that DIG
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:48:21PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Perhaps i'll aim for obliterating DIGIT altogether.
>
> I certainly can't think of any case in which we actually need/want
> a DIGIT. I see that DIGIT was added in release/0.1.49, back in
> 1998-03-17, as
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:48:21PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Perhaps i'll aim for obliterating DIGIT altogether.
I certainly can't think of any case in which we actually need/want
a DIGIT. I see that DIGIT was added in release/0.1.49, back in
1998-03-17, as part of the initial version of lexe
