At 07:07 PM 12/6/2001 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:47:54PM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote: > > Either way is fine with me. Let me know and I'll check in an updated > > version... > >Well, uh, neither, actually. :) I think the implementation of "rotate" >is broken, since the parameters to rotate_entries are all stuffed up. >I'm amazed this compiles: > >core_ops.c: rotate_entries(interpreter, cur_opcode[1]); >stacks.c:void rotate_entries(struct Parrot_Interp *interpreter, struct >StackChunk *base_chunk, struct Stack_Entry *top, INTVAL depth)
Ah, that was one of the things Dec C whined about until I (unwisely, I see) told it to shut up about non-fatals... Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk