[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: for_UP_and_DOWN
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: for_UP_and_DOWN |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:44:35 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 05:37:14PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> > I like that solution, but I'm iffy about relying on compiler
> > support for elements of languages that are less than 10 years old.
>
> I was not suggesting we use it. I just pointed out that in future for
> _some_ things "the C++ way" could become less incompatible with
> "readable".
:)
point to you.
- Graham
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, (continued)
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Graham Percival, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, David Kastrup, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Graham Percival, 2012/04/14
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, David Kastrup, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, David Kastrup, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Graham Percival, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, David Kastrup, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/17
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, address@hidden, 2012/04/20
- Message not available
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/04/22
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/23
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Graham Percival, 2012/04/15