On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 05:29:47AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote: > [Thomas Wouters] > > The changes fall in two categories: those I can test (and have tested and > > seem to work fine) and those that I can't test because I haven't such > > expensive hardware. > Didn't we go thru this before? If "expensive hardware" means SGI, Guido > said commit SGI ANSIfication patches. OS/2, NT, etc, are quite a bit different from SGI. SGI is UNIX, which I grok. I can't claim the same for NT ;P > Does "upload" mean "submit a patch" or "commit"? Commit. upload means submit a patch. I was nearly done uploading them, too! I guess I'll mark them as 'accepted' and commit them instead. > > but I wonder if anyone is actually going to review them ? > Don't want a patch for this. Commit. Will do. I'll need to generate new ones for compile.c and ceval.c, though, because these were done relative to the range-literals patch. > Every function call should have a prototype in scope. That's the answer to > the question you meant to ask <wink>. Each time you post one of these 'go ahead and do it' messages, I go ahead and do it, thinking to myself, "he said that before". And then the next time I see something I'm not quite sure about, I think "he said to go ahead and do it... but that was not about 'this', it was about the slightly different 'that' instead." ;P Simply-trying-not-to-overstep-my-bounds-ly y'rs, -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4