Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 08:55:53 +0000
Richard Heathfield said:
I'll take the hit on the splice, which is trivially fixable. The others
are only errors in C99, which doesn't count.
I've changed my mind. I really should read my own code before posting!
There is no line splicing error on line 20. *All* the reported errors would
appear to be irrelevant to a C90 compiler.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
.
- References:
- Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Simplicity has a future
- Prev by Date: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Next by Date: malloc() implementation
- Previous by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Next by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|