I don't see why anyone would want to have uninitialized integers. On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Adrian Lienhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is due to the changes introduced by > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=114 > > Printing not initialized Large*Integers does not work anymore. I don't know > whether this is important because in practice you probably neven have such > instances. We can either implement the old behavior or remove the tests. > What do others think? > > Adrian > > > On Aug 20, 2008, at 14:08 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I checked and between 10050 and 10055 >> we introduce a bug >> >> LargePositiveInteger new: 4 >> >> Stef >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >
-- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu)
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
