I have looked into your reply below and I have a question.
Would you prefer me to change the existing haltAllActivities methods or
create new ones with a different argument footproint?
Either works for me, this is just a style question really.
David Ashley
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 11:20 -0500,
Alcon;
In the following, it appears that the argument number inserted in the
message is not correct. It seems it should be 2, not 1.
301 *-* RC.Worst:
302 *-* procedure
303 *-* RetRC = arg(1)
4
I was suggesting a change to haltAllActivities. Note that this will also
require a couple of tweaks to the Windows-specific code as well.
Rick
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM, David Ashley w.david.ash...@gmail.comwrote:
I have looked into your reply below and I have a question.
Would you
The min() builtin just forwards the arguments as a method call using the
first argument as the target. From the standpoint of the place where the
error is detected, this is the correct position.
Rick
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Hobart Spitz orexx...@gmail.com wrote:
Alcon;
In the
Got it. Thanks. I should have guessed.
I take it that setting a fromFunction flag (to 1) e.g. in function calls
and adding it to the argument number in messages is too much work for too
little gain...
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Rick McGuire object.r...@gmail.com wrote:
The min()
The min() builtin just forwards the arguments as a method call using the first
argument as the target. From the standpoint of the place where the error is
detected, this is the correct position.
Not from the programmer's point of view, perhaps :-). The min() BIF could
check the
