On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's so great about n and no ?
Nobody has claimed that they are great...
I've never used them. Do we
really need to be polluting the interpretation of strings with these
values? What current or legacy code is using them heavily?
On Dec 16, 2007 11:57 AM, David Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's so great about n and no ?
Nobody has claimed that they are great...
I've never used them. Do we
really need to be polluting the interpretation of strings with
On Sunday 16 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:57 AM, David Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's so great about n and no ?
Nobody has claimed that they are great...
I've never used them. Do we
On Dec 16, 2007 1:44 PM, Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 11:57 AM, David Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's so great about n and no ?
Nobody
CMake defines FALSE as a string that's empty, 0, N, NO, OFF, FALSE,
NOTFOUND, or variable-NOTFOUND. I just realized that my regexes are
not safe with respect to capturing the letter n.
set(sillystring The rain in spain)
string(REGEX MATCH
.$
thematch ${sillystring})
if(thematch)