[Python-Dev] ANSIfication again ;)

Thomas Wouters thomas@xs4all.net
Sat, 22 Jul 2000 11:38:16 +0200

On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 05:29:47AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Thomas Wouters]

> > The changes fall in two categories: those I can test (and have tested and
> > seem to work fine) and those that I can't test because I haven't such
> > expensive hardware.

> Didn't we go thru this before?  If "expensive hardware" means SGI, Guido
> said commit SGI ANSIfication patches.

OS/2, NT, etc, are quite a bit different from SGI. SGI is UNIX, which I
grok. I can't claim the same for NT ;P

> Does "upload" mean "submit a patch" or "commit"?  Commit.

upload means submit a patch. I was nearly done uploading them, too! I guess
I'll mark them as 'accepted' and commit them instead.

> > but I wonder if anyone is actually going to review them ?

> Don't want a patch for this.  Commit.

Will do. I'll need to generate new ones for compile.c and ceval.c, though,
because these were done relative to the range-literals patch.

> Every function call should have a prototype in scope.  That's the answer to
> the question you meant to ask <wink>.

Each time you post one of these 'go ahead and do it' messages, I go ahead
and do it, thinking to myself, "he said that before". And then the next time
I see something I'm not quite sure about, I think "he said to go ahead and
do it... but that was not about 'this', it was about the slightly different
'that' instead." ;P

Simply-trying-not-to-overstep-my-bounds-ly y'rs,
Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!