[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: for_UP_and_DOWN
From: |
address@hidden |
Subject: |
Re: for_UP_and_DOWN |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:38:39 +0200 |
On Apr 17, 2012, at 11:19 PM, Łukasz Czerwiński wrote:
> Ok,
>
> Could we sum up the discussion?
> As I understand: for (UP_and_DOWN(d))
> {
> }
>
> is ok, right? I will wait for two OKs and then make changes and produce and
> upload a patch.
>
> Łukasz
>
LGTM.
Before you tackle this, I'd strongly recommend asking Han Wen why the flip (&d)
business is there in the first place - it could be that he opted for the `do'
loop over a macro for a precise reason that could prove to be important.
Cheers,
MS
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, (continued)
- 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, 2012/04/15
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN, Łukasz Czerwiński, 2012/04/17
- Re: for_UP_and_DOWN,
address@hidden <=
- 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