One is enough. As it should have been for loop constructs. -- Sylvain
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? Silvan Jegen
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? Silvan Jegen
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? Cág
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? Silvan Jegen
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? David Demelier
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? stephen Turner
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not ... Laslo Hunhold
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and ... k0ga
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */... sylvain . bertrand
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? Evan Gates
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? sylvain . bertrand
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? Quentin Rameau
- Re: [dev] Coding style: why /* */ and not //? Anselm Garbe
