Per Inge Mathisen schreef:
> On 6/3/07, Giel van Schijndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * Change macro CHECK_DROID into static inline function check_droid
>>
> Why?
Two reasons basically. First is compile-time checked type-safety. Second
is that this inline is less obscure than the macr
On 6/3/07, Giel van Schijndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure but I think the gna.org mailinglist's are somehow
> annoyingly ignoring some of my mails and don't deliver them.
You could check if they ended up in https://mail.gna.org/public/spam/
- Per
_
Per Inge Mathisen schreef:
> On 6/3/07, Per Inge Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/07, Giel van Schijndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> * Change macro CHECK_DROID into static inline function check_droid
>>>
>> Why?
>>
> Perhaps I should explain why it was done
On 6/3/07, Per Inge Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/3/07, Giel van Schijndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Change macro CHECK_DROID into static inline function check_droid
>
> Why?
Perhaps I should explain why it was done the way it was instead.
When an assert happens in a macro, y
On 6/3/07, Giel van Schijndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Change macro CHECK_DROID into static inline function check_droid
Why?
- Per
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
