"Thanks, Applied"
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 3:51 PM +0100 11/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are we comfortable adding the dynclasses to the default build target?
I think it can go in.
Done.
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are we comfortable adding the dynclasses to the default build target?
I think it can go in.
> I want to at some point, if only to make really sure that we don't
> break them. (As stuff that gets built and tested by default stays up
> to date, while the r
At 3:51 PM +0100 11/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are we comfortable adding the dynclasses to the default build target?
I think it can go in.
Lets do that then.
> I want to at some point, if only to make really sure that we don't
break them. (As stuff that
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:07 AM +0100 11/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Attached patch makes building in the dynclass ghetto a bit less
inhospitable...
Thanks, applied.
Are we comfortable adding the dynclasses to the default build target? I
want to at some point
At 10:07 AM +0100 11/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Attached patch makes building in the dynclass ghetto a bit less
inhospitable...
Thanks, applied.
Are we comfortable adding the dynclasses to the default build target?
I want to at some point, if only to make re
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached patch makes building in the dynclass ghetto a bit less
> inhospitable...
Thanks, applied.
leo
Attached patch makes building in the dynclass ghetto a bit less
inhospitable...
- Sam Ruby
? pyint.imc
? test.imc
? config/gen/makefiles/.dynclasses_pl.in.swp
? dynclasses/pyboolean.pmc
? dynclasses/pydict.pmc
? dynclasses/pyfloat.pmc
? dynclasses/pyfunc.pmc
? dynclasses/pyint.pmc
? dynclasses/py
