On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:46:04AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 01/03/2016 11:18 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:01:42AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> >> On 01/03/2016 10:59 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 02:37:23PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes w
On 01/03/2016 11:18 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:01:42AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
>> On 01/03/2016 10:59 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 02:37:23PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 03/01/2016 10:15, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>> Attac
On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:01:42AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 01/03/2016 10:59 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 02:37:23PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> Le 03/01/2016 10:15, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> Attached patch OK? If so, I would put it in at the begi
On 01/03/2016 10:59 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 02:37:23PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Le 03/01/2016 10:15, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Attached patch OK? If so, I would put it in at the beginning of the
2.3.0 cycle.
From 0edbc7f52f4ecb288389e94f87e73
On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 02:37:23PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 03/01/2016 10:15, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >>Attached patch OK? If so, I would put it in at the beginning of the
> >>2.3.0 cycle.
> >
> >> From 0edbc7f52f4ecb288389e94f87e7388d5c466166 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>From: S
Le 03/01/2016 10:15, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Attached patch OK? If so, I would put it in at the beginning of the
2.3.0 cycle.
From 0edbc7f52f4ecb288389e94f87e7388d5c466166 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Scott Kostyshak
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 21:58:22 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Do not initializ
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:13:29PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:52:15PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> > On 12/10/2015 03:09 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:10:42AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > >> Le 09/12/2015 06:54, Scott Kostyshak
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:52:15PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 12/10/2015 03:09 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:10:42AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> Le 09/12/2015 06:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >>> Regarding the following code:
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> vo
On 12/10/2015 03:09 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:10:42AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Le 09/12/2015 06:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>>> Regarding the following code:
>>>
>>> -
>>> void Text::selectWord(Cursor & cur, word_location loc)
>>> {
>>> LBUFERR(thi
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:10:42AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 09/12/2015 06:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> >Regarding the following code:
> >
> >-
> >void Text::selectWord(Cursor & cur, word_location loc)
> >{
> > LBUFERR(this == cur.text());
> > CursorSlice from = cur.top();
Le 09/12/2015 06:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Regarding the following code:
-
void Text::selectWord(Cursor & cur, word_location loc)
{
LBUFERR(this == cur.text());
CursorSlice from = cur.top();
CursorSlice to = cur.top();
getWord(from, to, loc);
-
It is not easy to know whe
On 12/09/2015 12:54 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Regarding the following code:
>
> -
> void Text::selectWord(Cursor & cur, word_location loc)
> {
> LBUFERR(this == cur.text());
> CursorSlice from = cur.top();
> CursorSlice to = cur.top();
> getWord(from, to, loc);
> -
>
> It is not
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > (*iterator).whatever
| >
| > rather than :
| >
| > iterator->whatever
| >
| > IMHO it's harder to type and read ...
|
| I don't know. I use the latter...
Of course anotehr reason to use (*it).afd
is that this shows rather explicilty that
> (*iterator).whatever
>
> rather than :
>
> iterator->whatever
>
> IMHO it's harder to type and read ...
I don't know. I use the latter...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Why are people using :
> |
> | (*iterator).whatever
> |
> | rather than :
> |
> | iterator->whatever
> |
> | IMHO it's harder to type and read ...
>
> gcc 2.7.2 did not support the -> operator f
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, John Levon wrote:
JL| Why are people using :
JL|
JL| (*iterator).whatever
JL|
JL| rather than :
JL|
JL| iterator->whatever
the operator-> requires to return a pointer .. which is sometimes not
possible to implement in an iterator, specifically, if the iterator
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Why are people using :
|
| (*iterator).whatever
|
| rather than :
|
| iterator->whatever
|
| IMHO it's harder to type and read ...
gcc 2.7.2 did not support the -> operator for iterators.
but we can switch now.
Lgb
17 matches
Mail list logo
