Re: [Oorexx-devel] rxmath

- Original Message - From: "Rick McGuire" "if a doc update was missed regarding this error, then the documentation should be fixed. Rick" Most definitely so, I'd say. If that's the decision I volunteer to work on the update of the rxmath.doc. Walter -

Re: [Oorexx-devel] rxmath

I don't agree that there should be a distinction between behaviors based on how the digits value has been set. The 3.2.0 code did not make such a distinction, raising an error in both situations. The error for a too large value was removed when we discovered that rxmath could not be used on a 64-

Re: [Oorexx-devel] rxmath

How does the ooRexx community decide on such an issue. Fact is that the current implementation never fais due to too high an explicit or implied precision. I urge you to make up your mind and decide what should be done. My solution would be error if the user explicitly asks for more than 16 digi

Re: [Oorexx-devel] rxmath

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Walter Pachl wrote: > 1) What are 'native' libraries? In this discussion, native libraries refer to the libraries provided by the C / C++ compiler subsystem, or by the operating system. Native library can also refer to the library that implements an external pa

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Request for pointers, hints, help ...[Fwd: [ oorexx-Bugs-2865707 ] Multithreading problems, 2]

Rick McGuire wrote: > Please open a new problem for the run_90_testgroup problem. > Thanks: . ---rony -- Come build with us! The Bl

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Request for pointers, hints, help ...[Fwd: [ oorexx-Bugs-2865707 ] Multithreading problems, 2]

Please open a new problem for the run_90_testgroup problem. Rick On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > > Rick McGuire wrote: >> Ok, I see the problem.  Please only report one problem per bug >> report.  I'm able to reproduce the problem by running >> run_90_testgroup.cmd, b

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Request for pointers, hints, help ...[Fwd: [ oorexx-Bugs-2865707 ] Multithreading problems, 2]

Rick McGuire wrote: > Ok, I see the problem. Please only report one problem per bug > report. I'm able to reproduce the problem by running > run_90_testgroup.cmd, but the requirement to run that program got lost > in the bulk of this large bug report. These are distinctly separate > problems an

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Request for pointers, hints, help ...[Fwd: [ oorexx-Bugs-2865707 ] Multithreading problems, 2]

Ok, I see the problem. Please only report one problem per bug report. I'm able to reproduce the problem by running run_90_testgroup.cmd, but the requirement to run that program got lost in the bulk of this large bug report. These are distinctly separate problems and should be opened and tracked

[Oorexx-devel] Request for pointers, hints, help ...[Fwd: [ oorexx-Bugs-2865707 ] Multithreading problems, 2]

Hi there, enclosed you'll find a bug report I filed regarding multithreading problems. The original message is at the top, the intermediate messages are given from the very bottom to the top. My problem currently: I get a crash each time I run the test, Rick doesn't. --- Debuging multithreading

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Possible argc/argv Solution

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Gil Barmwater wrote: > Opps!  That should be \n, not /n.  Should have checked first :-( > > Rick McGuire wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Gil Barmwater >> wrote: >> >>>I, too, have been following the C.L.R thread and have a question on this >>>discussio

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Possible argc/argv Solution

Rick McGuire wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Gil Barmwater > wrote: > >>I, too, have been following the C.L.R thread and have a question on this >>discussion: What is the reasoning behind the statement "Returning the >>argument string in a list..."? I would have thought an Array rath

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Possible argc/argv Solution

Opps! That should be \n, not /n. Should have checked first :-( Rick McGuire wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Gil Barmwater > wrote: > >>I, too, have been following the C.L.R thread and have a question on this >>discussion: What is the reasoning behind the statement "Returning the >>