...

...

...

...

"GW" == Ge Wang writes:

GW> Greetings! Hi! GW> Thanks for the patches. We have applied the larger one and also dealt GW> with what we could find of the rest of the compiler warnings GW> (-Wall). Great news! GW> If you have v2 checked out, please update, make clean, and give GW> it a try and see if things work, including on 64-bit systems. GW> Please email me any errors or warnings. I certainly will. But for the moment I'm on vacation. I can read and write a little bit of mail, but won't be able to test it the coming week. I will take a look at it the week after that, though. GW> Thank you again for the patches. We haven't applied the first one yet GW> because we haven't finalized what <<<foo>>> should output exactly, or GW> if there will be variants of <<< >>>. GW> Presently, <<<foo>>> prints the value of foo and its type. GW> << prints foo and bar without type. So on for <<<>>> GW> with more arguments. Some issues are (1) should <<<foo>>> print GW> the type? (2) should we make a new operator based on <<<>>> for GW> printing foo to arbitrary file handles (stdout, stderr, files, GW> etc.)? We will likely bring back chucking to file handles (foo GW> => stdout), so <<<>>> won't be the only option. Thoughts? Myself, I never understood why "<<<foo>>>" should be used instead of "foo => stdout" in the first place, and I would certainly be interested in "chucking" data to arbitrary file descriptors (sockets and named pipes comes to mind) ... Given the existence of "foo => stdout", I would consider "<<<foo>>>" beeing more of a debugging facility, and so thinks it seems reasonable to include the type. -- Rasmus Kaj --+-- rasmus@kaj.se --+-- http://www.stacken.kth.se/~kaj/ Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots