My first post on hackers, so please don't flame me too bad :) I think
that only an old hacker can give me the answer :)
I've searched far and wide on search engines to find out what the =+
operator does, to no avail. I'm porting some old code and found it. I
made a test progr
> My first post on hackers, so please don't flame me too bad :) I think
> that only an old hacker can give me the answer :)
>
> I've searched far and wide on search engines to find out what the =+
> operator does, to no avail. I'm porting some old code and found
post on hackers, so please don't flame me too bad :) I think
> that only an old hacker can give me the answer :)
>
> I've searched far and wide on search engines to find out what the =+
> operator does, to no avail. I'm porting some old code and found it. I
> made
On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 07:46:16AM -0700, Les Biffle wrote:
> ... There
> has never been an operator =+, even checking back to the BCPL days.
Nope, check "anachronisms" in K&R, at least the 1978 edition p 212:
"Earlier versions of C used the form =op instead of op= for
assignment operations. T
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Rob wrote:
R>My first post on hackers, so please don't flame me too bad :) I think
R>that only an old hacker can give me the answer :)
R>
R>I've searched far and wide on search engines to find out what the =+
R>operator does, to no avail. I'm porting some old code and found
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 12:18:57PM -0700, John Merryweather Cooper wrote:
>
> Since when does any self-respecting compiler dictate object format? It's
> brain-damage for a compiler to screw with the object format--so much for
If you have ever programmed in Ada, you would understand. Since I as
On 2001.08.12 15:02 David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 12:18:57PM -0700, John Merryweather Cooper wrote:
> >
> > Since when does any self-respecting compiler dictate object format?
> It's
> > brain-damage for a compiler to screw with the object format--so much
> for
>
> If you have
John Merryweather Cooper wrote:
> > > Prototypes are an overwhelmingly "Good Thing(tm)"
> > > as behind-your-back implicit parameter conversion is death to serious
> > > numerical work. At least now, some control can be exercised over
> > parameter
> > > conversions . . .
> >
> > Who ever said an
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Jan Knepper wrote:
> I just checked on this "=+" and "=-" with the guy that wrote the first
> native C++ compiler and he does not recall it at first being that way...
of course not. It had changed long before C++. You have to go back to 1976
to find this.
> I have been prog
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 07:38:27PM -0600, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Jan Knepper wrote:
>
> > I just checked on this "=+" and "=-" with the guy that wrote the first
> > native C++ compiler and he does not recall it at first being that way...
>
> of course not. It had changed
10 matches
Mail list logo
