At 9:50 AM -0500 6/11/02, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>The question is, do we want all combos of i,p, and n? So add_i_i, add_n_i,
>add_p_i, add_i_n, add_n_n, add_p_n, add_i_p, add_n_p, add_p_p? Or is this
>too many ops?
I'm OK with the combos, with the caveat that we may remove them if it
turns out l
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Jeff wrote:
> Tests are now failing because of the removal of the 'inc_n_ic' opcode. I
> find this interesting for several reasons. One, the tests probably
> should have been removed. Two, once the 'inc' operator has two
> parameters, it is no longer 'increment' in my mind. I
At 8:17 PM -0400 6/10/02, Jeff wrote:
>If anyone would like 'inc_i_ic' and the like to still be called 'inc_',
>speak within the next few days or hold your peace until someone else
>decides to add them back to CVS. I'll rewrite the tests to 'add_n_ic'
>and that ilk.
Too bad, they lose. :) add is
