Re: [Toybox] Graff and bc

I am about to try to implement your changes to bc_exec (and maybe bc_vm_init) in my release script. While doing so, if you would like, it would make sense to try to remove the BcStatus enum and replace it with either #defines (chars, so I can assign right to toys.retval) or something else of your

Re: [Toybox] Graff and bc

On 03/12/2018 08:41 PM, Rob Landley wrote:> They're both intentionally small and simple, with descriptions in the commit > messages. I'll just post the third one to the list... Next pass, net deletion of 72 lines. landley@driftwood:~/toybox/toy3$ git diff toys/*/bc.c | diffstat bc.c | 174

Re: [Toybox] Graff and bc

Rob, If you inline bc_exec() and bc_vm_init(), I am not sure that I will be able to maintain this for you. bc_exec() is there just so I could keep the main function in my repo out of yours. Trying to make that work with my release script would be killer. I don't think saving 20 out of 9000 lines

Re: [Toybox] Graff and bc

Also, bc_code is equivalent to "toys.optflags & FLAG_c", not "toys.optflags & FLAG_i." FLAG_i is for bc_interactive. GH On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Gavin Howard wrote: > Rob, > > If you inline bc_exec() and bc_vm_init(), I am not sure that I will be > able to

[Toybox] Fwd: Graff and bc

Forwarded mail that was accidentally sent privately to Rob. Gavin Howard -- Forwarded message -- From: Gavin Howard Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [Toybox] Graff and bc To: Rob Landley That is a really good email,

Re: [Toybox] Graff and bc

On 03/13/2018 10:05 AM, Gavin Howard wrote: > Also, bc_code is equivalent to "toys.optflags & FLAG_c", not > "toys.optflags & FLAG_i." FLAG_i is for bc_interactive. > GH This is why I want those regression tests. :) Rob ___ Toybox mailing list

Re: [Toybox] Graff and bc

> And still not on the list. Oh well. Actually, that *was* sent to the list; I just also sent it to you directly. I won't make that mistake again. I will only send things to the list. >> That is a really good email, and I guess we have had a bit of >> miscommunication about this. >> >> To me, I