On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 09:59:20AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Asger Ottar Alstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | If any of you twits had bothered to look, you would see that the
> | second patch actually changed the definitions, rather than the forward
> | declarations.
>
> :-)
>
> S
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:05:27AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > | If any of you twits had bothered to look, you would see that the
> > | second patch actually changed the definitions, rather than the forward
> > | declarations.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > So its you that a
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
So its you that are the joy-killer now.
> | | The phrase is "kill-joy".
> | Not in my vocab.
> | so no we have a kill-sport as well...
> but I guess you want "spoil-sport" here.
Attaboy!
--
Angus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> | If any of you twits had bothered to look, you would see that the
>>> | second patch actually changed the definitions, rather than the forward
>>> | declarations.
>>>
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | If any of you twits had bothered to look, you would see that the
>> | second patch actually changed the definitions, rather than the forward
>> | declarations.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> So its you that are the joy-killer now.
>
|
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | If any of you twits had bothered to look, you would see that the
> | second patch actually changed the definitions, rather than the forward
> | declarations.
>
> :-)
>
> So its you that are the joy-killer now.
The phrase is "kill-joy".
--
Angus
Asger Ottar Alstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| If any of you twits had bothered to look, you would see that the
| second patch actually changed the definitions, rather than the forward
| declarations.
:-)
So its you that are the joy-killer now.
--
Lgb
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | Asger's exchanging of the class and struct keywords.
>>
>> I wonder who gets to clean this up...
>>
>> From what I saw in Asgers patch several places it was not the forward
>> declaration that should change, but the decl
Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote:
> If any of you twits had bothered to look, you would see that the second
> patch actually changed the definitions, rather than the forward
> declarations.
Oh, I did look. And this is what I committed. But the stuff about the
semantic equivalence is still true, so eithe
If any of you twits had bothered to look, you would see that the second
patch actually changed the definitions, rather than the forward
declarations.
Regards,
Asger
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Asger's exchanging of the class and struct keywords.
>
> I wonder who gets to clean this up...
>
> From what I saw in Asgers patch several places it was not the forward
> declaration that should change, but the declaration/definition.
> Did you look at that?
No, of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Log message:
| Asger's exchanging of the class and struct keywords.
I wonder who gets to clean this up...
>From what I saw in Asgers patch several places it was not the forward
declaration that should change, but the declaration/definition.
Did you look at that?
12 matches
Mail list logo
