On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 04:28:20AM -0400, Andrew Rodland wrote:
> On Thursday 27 October 2005 09:37 pm, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:22:40PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > > On Oct 27, 2005, at 22:31, Nick Glencross wrote:
> > > >There are a few cases of -1 being assigned
On Thursday 27 October 2005 09:37 pm, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:22:40PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 2005, at 22:31, Nick Glencross wrote:
> > >There are a few cases of -1 being assigned to unsigneds. Anyone know
> > >if that's deliberate?
> >
> > Yup. Some
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:22:40PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2005, at 22:31, Nick Glencross wrote:
>
> >There are a few cases of -1 being assigned to unsigneds. Anyone know
> >if that's deliberate?
>
> Yup. Some special out-of-band values.
I suspect that gcc4 will give a war
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
On Oct 27, 2005, at 22:31, Nick Glencross wrote:
There are a few cases of -1 being assigned to unsigneds. Anyone know
if that's deliberate?
Yup. Some special out-of-band values.
I thought as much. Nothing to worry about there then...
One other thing I forgot to a
On Oct 27, 2005, at 22:31, Nick Glencross wrote:
There are a few cases of -1 being assigned to unsigneds. Anyone know
if that's deliberate?
Yup. Some special out-of-band values.
Cheers,
Nick
leo
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Nick~
|
| On 10/26/05, Nick Glencross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Guy,
| >
| > As a follow-up to a discussion a few days ago about binding parrot to
| > C++ functions, is making it possible to compile parrot with a C++
| > c
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Nick~
|
| On 10/26/05, Nick Glencross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Guy,
| >
| > As a follow-up to a discussion a few days ago about binding parrot to
| > C++ functions, is making it possible to compile parrot with a C++
| > compiler a 'Bad Thing'?
|
|
Nick~
On 10/26/05, Nick Glencross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guy,
>
> As a follow-up to a discussion a few days ago about binding parrot to
> C++ functions, is making it possible to compile parrot with a C++
> compiler a 'Bad Thing'?
I like the idea, but I tend to like C++ more than reason woul
Guy,
As a follow-up to a discussion a few days ago about binding parrot to
C++ functions, is making it possible to compile parrot with a C++
compiler a 'Bad Thing'?
If anything, it should strengthen the code base. I had a dabble a few
weeks ago to see how big a job it would be, and quickly c
