On Tue Aug 05 05:58:41 2008, kjs wrote: > As far as I could see, it seems that the whole "n_operators" thing is > no > longer mentioned in pdd19. > > if it's what Pm thinks, just a change from ".pragma n_operators" to > ".n_operators", then that should be added. > > kjs > > On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Patrick R. Michaud > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:07:49AM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:06 PM, via RT Will Coleda wrote > > > > From PDD19: > > > > > > > > =item .pragma n_operators [deprecated] > > > > > > does this mean that by default all ops will have the n_ prefix by > > default? > > > That would imply some variants of these ops are removed (namely, > the > > > non-n_-prefixed ones). > > > > > > I guess what my question is, what's the reason for removing this? > > > > I think all this means is that the pragma itself is deprecated. > > I would presume that the n_operators remain, and that programs can > > continue to generate both n_ and non-n_ opcodes as needed. > > > > Pm > >
After the pdd27mmd merge, all the n_* opcodes are gone now. I assume the ".pragma n_operators" can disappear with them? -- Andrew Whitworth a.k.a Whiteknight
