chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 19:43, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> I know I'm a little late to the game here, but in the future it would
> be useful to mention this sort of info in a comment in the source. :-)
> And a comment might be a nice addition even now.
>
> (You m
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 19:43, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> I know I'm a little late to the game here, but in the future it would
> be useful to mention this sort of info in a comment in the source. :-)
> And a comment might be a nice addition even now.
>
> (You mentioned being more clear in the svn lo
chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... provides quite misleading results:
$ parrot -o file.pir
Option file.pir expects an argument
parrot -[abcCEfgGhjprStvVwy.] [-d [FLAGS]] [-O [level]] [-o FILE]
I don't believe there's a working heuristic for guessing which parameter the
user failed to pro
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 13:38, Audrey Tang wrote:
> Chromatic: Your original commit log noted room for possible
> improvements with the English
> message, which I interpreted as a invitation to help, and acted
> accordingly, but probably
> was mistaken, and thereby perceived as rude. I'm sorry ab
在 2006/7/18 下午 3:55 時，jerry gay 寫到：
On 7/18/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 02:21, Audrey Tang wrote:
> Does r13347 look better? If not, please revert both my changes.
I think it's still misleading. #13364 is probably as accurate as
Parrot can
report.
a
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 12:55, jerry gay wrote:
> On 7/18/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 July 2006 02:21, Audrey Tang wrote:
> > > Does r13347 look better? If not, please revert both my changes.
> > I think it's still misleading. #13364 is probably as accurate as Par
On 7/18/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 02:21, Audrey Tang wrote:
> Does r13347 look better? If not, please revert both my changes.
I think it's still misleading. #13364 is probably as accurate as Parrot can
report.
and has the distinction of compiling on win
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 02:21, Audrey Tang wrote:
Hi Audrey,
> Does r13347 look better? If not, please revert both my changes.
I think it's still misleading. #13364 is probably as accurate as Parrot can
report.
> As an aside, regardless of the three changes, this still segfaults:
>
> ./
在 2006/7/18 上午 4:49 時，chromatic 寫到：
I don't believe there's a working heuristic for guessing which
parameter the
user failed to provide. That's why I didn't write the original
version that
way.
Does r13347 look better? If not, please revert both my changes.
As an aside, regardless of th
This patch:
--- trunk/compilers/imcc/main.c (original)
+++ trunk/compilers/imcc/main.c Tue Jul 18 01:33:59 2006
@@ -369,7 +369,7 @@
exit(EX_USAGE);
}
if (*argc == opt.opt_index ) {
-fprintf(stderr, "Missing option value or program name\n");
+fprintf(stderr, "Opti
10 matches
Mail list logo
