Am Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:12:25 +0200
schrieb Pavel Sanda :
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:35:30PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 26/04/2022 ?? 14:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
> > >On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > >>>I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:35:30PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 26/04/2022 ?? 14:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
> >On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >>>I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'.
> >
> >There is subtlety here, which
Le 26/04/2022 à 14:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'.
There is subtlety here, which might be the source of confusion. The standard
does not tell you
long long needs
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'.
There is subtlety here, which might be the source of confusion. The standard
does not tell you
long long needs to be *implemented* by 64bits. It just tells
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 09:35:46PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Can you explain to me what is the reason for "weakly opposing" it?
>
> Yes, the code does no harm, only gave me a guaranty.
> I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'.
Nope, we are in the 'must' re
I've made the "Remove from personal dictionary" function/context menu item work
for words that haven't been previously added, but instead are in the
system-wide dictionary.
I've modified the behaviour so that it will cause the word to be marked as
incorrectly spelt, regardless of whether it is i
