;t conflict but in fact enhance O'Reilly's buisness,
I'm not sure I see why they'd object.
OT: What's the history of the camel? Does it predate O'Reilly's involvement?
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
1(x) = ln(1 + x)
expm1(x) = exp(x) - 1
to deal accurately and quickly with the special case where x<<1. This may not be
useful in an environment of pseudo-infinite precision, unless speed begins to
matter alot. Maybe they could be called automagically when the compiler sees
something like the
I'm not seeing it. My problem, or is it not being mirrored yet?
-- Tim
Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Conrow) writes:
>I'm not seeing it. My problem, or is it not being mirrored yet?
I'm reading it via NNTP.
Right, I've got it now. Don't know why I didn't see it there before.
-- Tim
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
I worry that C sounds too much like something class-related,
and would confuse people. What about C or something? Decent
thesaurus entries for include:
assign, classify, comb, compartmentalize, discriminate, distribute,
group, order, segregate, sift, winnow, amputate, c
Tom Christiansen wrote:
> Perhaps what you're truly looking for is a generalized tainting mechanism.
Sounds cool, but I have only the vaguest idea what you (may) mean. Pointers?
RFCs? Examples? Hints?
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Tim Conrow wrote:
>
> Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > Perhaps what you're truly looking for is a generalized tainting mechanism.
>
> Sounds cool, but I have only the vaguest idea what you (may) mean. Pointers?
> RFCs? Examples? Hints?
Sorry for the clutter, but I d
(confession: I forgot about "U"
in v1 of the RFC)), C, C, string-context bitwise ops plus
C and C create "packed strings". If Unicode is commonly acquired or
manipulated by any of those and meant to stay human readable, then there may be
a conflict.
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nly cases I've been able to think of are
> > JAPHs or code samples.
>
> "too painful" is, of course, a judgment call. I do use the
> read/unpack/modify/pack/print cycle a fair amount dealing with image data.
> I guess I'd say working around RFC 258 might be an
convey that the additional checking is only done
when explicitly invoked via C and/or C. Perhaps I should make that more explicit. In a sense, it's already
proposed to be sort of an extension, just one which is provided to everyone.
Everyone's short of tuits, but I'd love to see some hint of where you think this
causes problems.
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
10 matches
Mail list logo
