Updates:
Labels: -Version-TRUNK Version-3.0.0
Comment #8 on issue 194 by benoit.m...@gmail.com: "IIf" is buggy
http://code.google.com/p/gambas/issues/detail?id=194
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
Tr
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #7 on issue 194 by benoit.m...@gmail.com: "IIf" is buggy
http://code.google.com/p/gambas/issues/detail?id=194
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
Keep Your Developer Skill
Comment #6 on issue 194 by emil.len...@gmail.com: "IIf" is buggy
http://code.google.com/p/gambas/issues/detail?id=194
I think that will work :)
--
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehens
Comment #5 on issue 194 by benoit.m...@gmail.com: "IIf" is buggy
http://code.google.com/p/gambas/issues/detail?id=194
And yes, I should use a different function that SUBR_check_good_type() in
the IIf() implementation. That function was made for inline arrays
detection.
-
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Comment #4 on issue 194 by benoit.m...@gmail.com: "IIf" is buggy
http://code.google.com/p/gambas/issues/detail?id=194
Is it better with revision #4407?
--
Keep Your Developer Skills Cur
Comment #3 on issue 194 by emil.len...@gmail.com: "IIf" is buggy
http://code.google.com/p/gambas/issues/detail?id=194
I'm afraid that fix does not work for pure objects? (A truncated
class-pointer will be sent to VALUE_convert, and it will overwrite the
higher bits of *PC).
I think setting (
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #2 on issue 194 by benoit.m...@gmail.com: "IIf" is buggy
http://code.google.com/p/gambas/issues/detail?id=194
It should be fixed in revision #4405.
--
Keep Your Developer Skills Cu
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Labels: -Version Version-TRUNK
Comment #1 on issue 194 by benoit.m...@gmail.com: "IIf" is buggy
http://code.google.com/p/gambas/issues/detail?id=194
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
Yes, you're right. I didn't look at your code close enough before I stuck
my foot in my mouth ;-)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Emil Lenngren wrote:
> No :)
> It should print the same as:
>Print IIf(True, 1.0, 1)
>Print IIf(False, 1.0, 1)
> which prints
> 1
> 1
>
> 2012/1/18 Randall M
No :)
It should print the same as:
Print IIf(True, 1.0, 1)
Print IIf(False, 1.0, 1)
which prints
1
1
2012/1/18 Randall Morgan
> I think the result is correct. I would expect a result of 1,0 as 1 is equal
> to 1 but 2 is not equal to 1.
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM, wrote:
>
> > S
I think the result is correct. I would expect a result of 1,0 as 1 is equal
to 1 but 2 is not equal to 1.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM, wrote:
> Status: New
> Owner:
> Labels: Version Type-Bug Priority-Medium OpSys-Any Dist-Any Arch-Any
> Desktop-Any GUI-Any
>
> New issue 194 by emil.len
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Version Type-Bug Priority-Medium OpSys-Any Dist-Any Arch-Any
Desktop-Any GUI-Any
New issue 194 by emil.len...@gmail.com: "IIf" is buggy
http://code.google.com/p/gambas/issues/detail?id=194
1) Describe the problem.
IIf does not do the correct job when the true par
12 matches
Mail list logo