On Dec 28, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I took a look at this, but the new patch appears to cause some compile warnings (not that this code is totally warning free in the first place, but I'd rather not make the problem worse).
I'm not confident with the patch either, especially since there didn't seem to be any unit tests around it (no "make check" as far as I can tell) and it would be real easy to get the operator precedence wrong or miscast something. I'll mark the bug that I don't have confidence in the patch.
