> "AL" == Aleksandr Lomanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AL> As I understood you Wes live in US.
I'm not sure why that matters, but thanks for the rest of the
comments...
I'm not sure how I think about removing the forward encoding... I'll
have to think about it. One ramification is that if
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> Agreed. Regarding the "remove asserts with undefined string comparisons"
TA> RFV in question, I think we're currently at 4:1 (Marcus, Robert, Thomas,
TA> Dave in favor, Wes against) for rc3.
Err... Your above statement of "remove assert
Dave Shield wrote:
> The current code assumes the presence of "chown()" and
> "localtime_r()" routines - neither of which are supported by MinGW
> (or at least, not the version I was working with).
>
> I'm therefore appending a suitable patch which should work around
> these two calls, for MinGW o
Dave Shield wrote:
> If switching from
> assert( "string1" == "string2" )
> to
> assert( !"string == string2" )
>
> has the required behaviour, then that's probably the sensible
> change to apply at the moment.
>
> If we want to move towards a debug-based approach (either within
> an as
On 13/07/07, Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm going to wait a touch for rc3 to try and get opinions on the two
recent patches
So I'm going to slip rc3 till Monday
Good.
Can I therefore offer the following patch for consideration.
I had a quick play with Windows-based builds over
On 13/07/07, Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TA> -coders subject was "Re: rfv: remove asserts with undefined string
> TA> comparisons". I'm attaching it here again for convenience.
>
> Ugh. -1.
>
> How about a counter proposal,
On 13/07/07, Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to include this in 5.4.1.rc3.
+1
Re: Aleksandr's suggestion of removing the forward encoding support
completely. I'm inclined to endorse this proposal, but not mid-branch.
It would make more sense to drop the forward encoding fo