On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 01:40:01AM -0700, Buddy Burden wrote:
> > It's fairly unusually for a piece of code to be appropriate both as a
> > stand-alone program and as a module loaded by other programs. ...
> Perhaps David's original question would have been more clear with a
> slightly more targete
Buddy Burden writes:
> Guys,
>
> > It's fairly unusually for a piece of code to be appropriate both as
> > a stand-alone program and as a module loaded by other programs. ...
>
> Perhaps David's original question would have been more clear with a
> slightly more targeted footnote reference:
> ht
I recently received an rt (https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=79190)
saying some code in DBD::ODBC was wrong and a patch to fix it. The code was:
while (*cp != '\0') {
*cp++ = toupper(*cp);
}
and the fix (which shouldn't be required as the above code is fine) was:
while
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Martin J. Evans
wrote:
> I recently received an rt (https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=79190)
> saying some code in DBD::ODBC was wrong and a patch to fix it. The code was:
>
>while (*cp != '\0') {
> *cp++ = toupper(*cp);
>}
>
> and the fix (wh
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 14:40:01 +0100
"Martin J. Evans" wrote:
> Has anyone else come across something like this and what did they do?
Not with gcc but with an older cross-compiler. Since then, I have
always put increments and decrements in their own statements.
--
Just my 0.0002 million dol
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 02:40:01PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
> I recently received an rt (https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=79190)
> saying some code in DBD::ODBC was wrong and a patch to fix it. The code was:
>
>while (*cp != '\0') {
> *cp++ = toupper(*cp);
>}
>
> and
On 04/09/12 14:50, Leon Timmermans wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Martin J. Evans
wrote:
I recently received an rt (https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=79190)
saying some code in DBD::ODBC was wrong and a patch to fix it. The code was:
while (*cp != '\0') {
*cp++ = to
