[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: immediate strings #2
From: |
Ken Raeburn |
Subject: |
Re: immediate strings #2 |
Date: |
Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:43:15 -0500 |
On Nov 29, 2011, at 11:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> It'd be a lot of effort and probably not worthwhile, but not outside
>> of the rules.
>
> It would also be completely pointless.
No argument there. The standard permits a lot of behavior that would be
pointless, or at least seem so but perhaps have some point in some bizarre use
case....
Ken
- immediate strings #2, Dmitry Antipov, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Stefan Monnier, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Ken Raeburn, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Andreas Schwab, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Stefan Monnier, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Andreas Schwab, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Ken Raeburn, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Andreas Schwab, 2011/11/29
- Re: immediate strings #2, Ken Raeburn, 2011/11/29
- Re: immediate strings #2, Andreas Schwab, 2011/11/29
- Re: immediate strings #2,
Ken Raeburn <=
Re: immediate strings #2, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Stefan Monnier, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Dmitry Antipov, 2011/11/28
- Re: immediate strings #2, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/29
- Re: immediate strings #2, Dmitry Antipov, 2011/11/30
- Re: immediate strings #2, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/30
- Re: immediate strings #2, Ken Raeburn, 2011/11/30
- Re: immediate strings #2, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/30
Re: immediate strings #2, Dmitry Antipov, 2011/11/28
Re: immediate strings #2, Dmitry Antipov, 2011/11/29