Re: [dev] [bc]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > - Point: In general I don't see the point of implementing bc directly, >given you can implement it as a dc script. Why don't you strip your >codebase down, write a simple rpn-parser and use your general >arithmetic to build some

Re: [dev] [bc]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Michael Forney wrote: > I know next to nothing about bc and what GNU extensions are used by > timeconst.bc, but being able to build a linux kernel sounds like a > good goal to me. However, if timeconst.bc can be changed to use only > portable features of bc (in a w

Re: [dev] [bc]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:56:27 -0700 Michael Forney wrote: Dear Michael, > I know next to nothing about bc and what GNU extensions are used by > timeconst.bc, but being able to build a linux kernel sounds like a > good goal to me. However, if timeconst.bc can be changed to use only > portable feat

Re: [dev] [bc]

Laslo Hunhold wrote: > [...] and I hate busybox! Why? Actually, if a Linux kernel can be compiled without GNU bc, it's a step forward. Next would be getting rid of gcc-isms, and, finally, making a new build system. -- caóc

Re: [dev] [bc]

On 2018-03-13, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:44:08 -0600 > Gavin Howard wrote: >> About GNU extensions: this was originally implemented for toybox >> (http://landley.net/toybox/), and the maintainer specifically asked >> that my bc be able to run >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/

Re: [dev] [bc]

I submitted my bc because someone thought I should. I am sorry for taking your time. GH On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:44:08 -0600 > Gavin Howard wrote: > > Dear Gavin, > >> I am not so good with Makefiles, so I can see your point on that. > > it's

Re: [dev] [bc]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:44:08 -0600 Gavin Howard wrote: Dear Gavin, > I am not so good with Makefiles, so I can see your point on that. it's not too drastic, but it makes sense to investigate that a bit. > As far as dc, technically dc is not a standard, so if you > standards-conformant behavior

Re: [dev] [bc]

Laslo, I am not so good with Makefiles, so I can see your point on that. As far as dc, technically dc is not a standard, so if you standards-conformant behavior, you need to write a bc that can operate without dc. However, I will also be implementing dc in the same repo someday. The question is w

Re: [dev] [bc]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:30:40 -0600 Gavin Howard wrote: Hey Gavin, > I was told that I should submit submit a link to my bc on this mailing > list. It's in alpha stage. based on the first look, it looks good. However, there are multiple things I have an issue with: - GNU extensions: This is a

[dev] [bc]

Hello, I was told that I should submit submit a link to my bc on this mailing list. It's in alpha stage. https://github.com/gavinhoward/bc Gavin Howard