>> I think the patch is fine and can be committed. But, give
>> Steven a chance to respond before committing.
>
> Thanks, Steve. I think three days should be long enough. Will commit
> later today (if no one protests in the meantime).
Committed as r181044.
Cheers,
Janus
2011/11/3 Steve Kargl :
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:56:47PM +0100, Janus Weil wrote:
>> > At least add a comment about the re-use (abuse?) of the
>> > enum.
>>
>> Updated patch attached, which adds a short comment on the usage of 'match'.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> > This should reduce confusion months from
> Sounds like what everything needs is a differently named enum: say
> three_way_logic.
Well, one might just rename the present enum 'match' (which anyway
lacks the usual 'gfc' prefix), to something like 'gfc_three_way_logic'
(or whatever name you prefer), with appropriately named values. Then
on
Sounds like what everything needs is a differently named enum: say
three_way_logic.
On Nov 3, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
>> At least add a comment about the re-use (abuse?) of the
>> enum.
>
> Updated patch attached, which adds a short comment on the usage of 'match'.
>
>
>> This sho
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:56:47PM +0100, Janus Weil wrote:
> > At least add a comment about the re-use (abuse?) of the
> > enum.
>
> Updated patch attached, which adds a short comment on the usage of 'match'.
Thanks.
> > This should reduce confusion months from when
> > someone wonders why gfc_
> At least add a comment about the re-use (abuse?) of the
> enum.
Updated patch attached, which adds a short comment on the usage of 'match'.
> This should reduce confusion months from when
> someone wonders why gfc_extend_expr returns a "match"
> for a non-matching function.
Well, I think my a
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:06:23AM +0100, Janus Weil wrote:
> 2011/11/2 Steven Bosscher :
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
> >> What the patch does is to change the return value from
> >> 'gfc_try' (SUCCESS/FAILURE) to 'match'
> >> (MATCH_YES/MATCH_NO/MATCH_ERROR). Of course
2011/11/2 Steven Bosscher :
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
>> What the patch does is to change the return value from
>> 'gfc_try' (SUCCESS/FAILURE) to 'match'
>> (MATCH_YES/MATCH_NO/MATCH_ERROR). Of course we're not really
>> 'matching' anything here, but the yes/no/error ran
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Janus Weil wrote:
> What the patch does is to change the return value from
> 'gfc_try' (SUCCESS/FAILURE) to 'match'
> (MATCH_YES/MATCH_NO/MATCH_ERROR). Of course we're not really
> 'matching' anything here, but the yes/no/error range of values is
> exactly what we
Hi all,
the attached patch does a little cleanup: It occurred to me recently
that 'gfc_extend_expr' has an argument 'real_error', which is a bit
awkward. Its function would be better encoded in an enhanced range of
return values. What the patch does is to change the return value from
'gfc_try' (SU
10 matches
Mail list logo
