In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:35 AM 11/11/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm not sure s-strlen is always gaurnteed to be correct;
string_length(s) is. (I found a case where it was wrong when coding my
version of ord()
At 03:35 AM 11/11/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
ook, cool, but string_length returns an INTVAL, not an int.
Remember that people who say negative usually mean positive, they
just don't know it yet. Always
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:05:04PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Will. Docs, darn it! Must have docs! Tests, too, but if you have docs you
can rope someone into writing the tests and the lot of 'ya can submit a
chunk of patches. :)
And if you have docs and tests, you might be able to convince
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
ook, cool, but string_length returns an INTVAL, not an int.
Remember that people who say negative usually mean positive, they
just don't know it yet. Always look on the bright si-ide of life, de
do, de do de do
string.pasm patches the operators mentioned
The other file, 'parrot.pasm', is a miniature Parrot compiler, written
in Parrot.
The patches in the string.diff file are required to make this work.
It's currently -very- limited, due to some issues that I found with
macro processing and some problems
