On 5/1/2018 10:10 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Actually I'm having second thoughts about that and thinking I might keep
my original approach (with a better explanation).
A few more lines of code seems worthwhile in order to not break the
assumptions a documented API is making, no matter
On Tue, May 01 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 5/1/2018 9:39 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Tue, May 01 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>>
>>> From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>>>
>>> Here is what I mean by sorting during for_each_abbrev(). This seems to work
>>> for
>>>
On 5/1/2018 9:39 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Tue, May 01 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote:
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Here is what I mean by sorting during for_each_abbrev(). This seems to work for
me, so I don't know what the issue is with this one-pass approach.
On Tue, May 01 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>
> Here is what I mean by sorting during for_each_abbrev(). This seems to work
> for
> me, so I don't know what the issue is with this one-pass approach.
> [...]
> +static int sort_ambiguous(const
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Here is what I mean by sorting during for_each_abbrev(). This seems to work for
me, so I don't know what the issue is with this one-pass approach.
Thanks,
-Stolee
-- >8 --
Change the output emitted when an ambiguous object is encountered so
that
5 matches
Mail list logo